"No!"

[Sun tzu]

Well, I'm trying to find the root of the disagreement...

Okay, let me try to explain it in the roots of things for me. Let's say for a moment that I grant you your argument, that someone should be able to kill to preserve life, particularly when it comes to either the death ray scenario you described or just in a hostage situation. But then we come up with another scenario - instead of a death ray, the individual has to rape a captured innocent woman or else the criminal is going to kill her or kill tons of people. And then I have to grant that to preserve others lives but another life is destroyed in the process. Or another scenario where a person has to steal or bribe or even exterminate, say, the entire population of a country or else the entire world will be slain. Maybe you don't have a problem with these due to the supposed greater good, but to me, doing something evil in order to achieve a "greater good" taints whatever good results from it. It's the recurring theme in Lightbringer so far when he is confronted with these villains: they believe that sometimes you have to do evil things to achieve a greater good and I disagree wholeheartedly with that philosophy. Maybe Rorschach was a hypocrite because of how much he tortured or murdered, but he was still right at the end of Watchmen: "Not even in the face of armageddon. Never compromise."

Why would irreversibility make one more hypocritical than the other?

A criminal gives up the right to their freedom when they infringes upon the freedom of others. They can still see what they did and realize they were wrong and they can regain their freedom. But when a criminal kills, they still have every right to live as anyone else. If the criminal is killed, they can't realize the error of their ways and find some manner of redemption or find a way to be punished for their crimes and learn to appreciate life - they're just dead.

Maybe, but the purpose of jailing and/or killing criminals isn'tjust to punish/teach them a lesson. It's also to keep people safe from them.

[Heliomance]

Woo, I finally get here. I cannot believe I only just realised there's a forum

Anyway, my two pence on the moral argument:
Killing is wrong. In all circumstances and in all places, it is regrettable, and it would have been better if the situation could have been resolved without killing.
HOWEVER:
Sometimes, I believe, there are situations where killing is the only option. Or, if not the only option, at least the best of a bad bunch. Would I have the courage to kill someone in such a situation? I doubt it. I would probably condemn the greater number to die or whatever through my own cowardice. And I would struggle to live with that, knowing that through my inaction, my inability to kill, I condemned many more. However, such a sitation could only possibly arise through the depravity of someone else. In which case, all responsibility falls on them, no matter what it might feel like. In that case, the only possible ethical choice, if only those options were presented, would be to condemn the few to save the many. But the responsibility for killing the few would not fall on you, I think, it would fall on whoever engineered the situation.

The other problem with killing is, indeed, that it is irreversible. As in the case of the portugese (I think) guy that was gunned down in London last year - if the killer discoverslater that actually the killing wasn't necessary, it cannot be undone. So you better be darn sure you're doing the right thing.

[Sun tzu]

Not exactly the same thing, but related...There are a couple more situations I'd like to get your opinions on:

1) This is from this story I'm writing. Basically, this very, very high-level villain (think, "Dr Doom with less redeeming qualities and the Society of Super-Villains at his command") had created this device that was slowing down time to a crawl for everyone on Earth except for him and the elite villains that were serving him. While everyone on Earth was virtually frozen in their spot, the villains under this guy's command were going all over the planet, killing every superhero and supervillain not under his command (thus ensuring that he sped time up again, only he and his followers would be left with superpowers, and easily rule the world).
Now, the protagonists were a group of superheroes who, for a reason not relevant to this discussion, were immune to the time-freeze. When time was slowed down, they found this other group of A-list heroes (that world's equivalent of the JLA), who were slowed down in time - except that one guy, who was using super-speed to be only partially slowed down (not fast enough to fight, but enough to communicate). He explained to the protagonists that the villains were coming any minute, and that this was their only chance to stop them; if they weren't stopped, the big bad archvillain would win, and the entire planet would fall under the rule of a guy who made Stalin look compassionate in comparison. As such, the veteran hero explained, the protagonists had to put every advantage on their side, and go straight for the kill in their fight with this group of villains. When one of the protagonists objected that they were heroes and weren't supposed to kill unless there was absolutely no other choice, the veteran replied "Normally, yes. But this is no police operation. This is war."

2) There was a recent scene in "Captain SNES", where (in a flashback) Alex, the protagonist, was confronting an overpowered villain looking for the Shard of Tears (multiverse-threatening artefact). To obtain Alex's cooperation in finding the Shard, the villain threatened to kill some innocent bystanders (well, superheroines in a sense - but not with a power level comparable to the villain's). Alex refused. In the scene I linked to, Ryan (the guy with the green text) was horrified by Alex's action. Paraphrasing here:
Ryan: "You let the bad guy kill them? That's horrible!"
Alex: "You're not thinking through. If I had agreed to his conditions, everybody would have been screwed, them included. Beside, someone else could have used the same tactic against me again."
Ryan: "That's not how a hero should behave! It's not right to put other people's lives at risk!"
Alex: "It was the right thing to do."
Ryan: "[The land's previous big hero] wouldn't have done such a thing."
Alex: "He failed, in case you forgot!"

The interesting thing is that Ryan has this "classical" (some would say naive) view of how heroes are supposed to be...And in the comic, he's an antagonist (it's been indicated that he wants to take Alex's place, since he judges him to be unworthy of being the place's hero)...
But, was Alex right?

[Linkara]

Good scenarios! I admit I was hoping this argument could be closed, but hey, I still love philosophical debate. ^_~

1-In a sense the veteran hero is right and it's war. As I said before, just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it won't still happen. Given the circumstances, I wouldn't fault one of the heroes who killed while in combat, but I'd hope they wouldn't be striving to make killing strokes on every attack. Again, it's the same soldier/police thing only with superheroes involved in a highly improbable situation that places them in a mental state that makes them do something that is immoral but forgivable.

2-In a sense, neither are wrong. If Alex had obtained the object and given it to the villain, those people would have died anyway. His refusal, though, also brings in something I call "The John Sheridan" defense to such a blackmail. I've used it before in my second book, but I'll explain how it happens: A villain threatening to kill someone places themself in a horrible position by doing so. If the hero refuses and they don't kill the threatened, it weakens their position as a villain. If they do kill the threatened, it strengthens the resolve of the hero to defeat them and refuse them even further. On the other hand, Ryan is also right, since it's conceivable that Alex could've found some way to either destroy the Shard of Tears or come up with a plan to prevent it falling into the villain's hand and still defeating him. Really it's a matter of what approach either hero would take based on their own personality. Neither possibility is really preferable to the other because of the risks involved.

[Invinible]

I wonder how Lightbringer would handle the following situation:

A group he was after takes him by surprise. Not only do they strip him of his clothes including his mask, they also put him in the bed of The Nudist figuring that it would keep him out of their hair and her to leave them alone.

Since I figure it would be needed, brief description of The Nudist: Bad guy, most beautiful female, has unbelievable amounts and levels of every power, usually goes around nude, never fased by clothes, and has a I.Q. lower than -9.

This will also probably be needed for the rest of the scenario: Anybody whom makes even the slightest skin to skin touch with either The Nudist or somebody infected with the Horndog Virus also become infected with the Horndog Virus. The Horndog Virus makes whomever is infected by it to fully give in to their sexual desires. Only The Nudist is known to be amune to it, though that isn't to say there aren't others others that are.

With that its time to finish setting up the scenario. Lightbringer wakes up next to The Nudist while still not infected with the Horndog Virus. The only other things that say something is wrong around here is the guys The Nudist infected around the bed and the fact the criminials he originially was after are clearly miles away as if this was a different group (which by the way it is) than he was dealing with and the privious group's only interest in this group was to get him out of the way.

[Linkara]

I wonder how Lightbringer would handle the following situation:

A group he was after takes him by surprise. Not only do they strip him of his clothes including his mask, they also put him in the bed of The Nudist figuring that it would keep him out of their hair and her to leave them alone.

Since I figure it would be needed, brief description of The Nudist: Bad guy, most beautiful female, has unbelievable amounts and levels of every power, usually goes around nude, never fased by clothes, and has a I.Q. lower than -9.

This will also probably be needed for the rest of the scenario: Anybody whom makes even the slightest skin to skin touch with either The Nudist or somebody infected with the Horndog Virus also become infected with the Horndog Virus. The Horndog Virus makes whomever is infected by it to fully give in to their sexual desires. Only The Nudist is known to be amune to it, though that isn't to say there aren't others others that are.

With that its time to finish setting up the scenario. Lightbringer wakes up next to The Nudist while still not infected with the Horndog Virus. The only other things that say something is wrong around here is the guys The Nudist infected around the bed and the fact the criminials he originially was after are clearly miles away as if this was a different group (which by the way it is) than he was dealing with and the privious group's only interest in this group was to get him out of the way.

I... I don't... What?

[Sun tzu]

What Linkara said.
(Hey, we finally agree on something!)

[Linkara]

Well, finally got your answer up, sun tzu. ^_~

[Sun tzu]

Well, finally got your answer up, sun tzu. ^_~

Hoo-kay.
First of all, the one thing that really bothered me about today's strip...I just can't see how these guys could possibly take what Lightbringer just said seriously (granted, they might not). Or how he could expect them too. His entire speech is phrased like he's talking to a group of superheroes - but none of these people think of themselves as such. That's his way of seeing things, not theirs.

Now that this is out of the way...Well, in one way, I agree with what he's saying about the importance of symbols and being a good role-model.
But how does that matter vis-a-vis what we've been discussing in this thread? If Destruction Man is about to destroy the city and you let him go through with it because you refuse to kill him, you're not really going to be inspiring anyone in the smoking crater that'll be left afterward.

[Linkara]

Well, finally got your answer up, sun tzu. ^_~

Hoo-kay.
First of all, the one thing that really bothered me about today's strip...I just can't see how these guys could possibly take what Lightbringer just said seriously (granted, they might not). Or how he could expect them too. His entire speech is phrased like he's talking to a group of superheroes - but none of these people think of themselves as such. That's his way of seeing things, not theirs.

Now that this is out of the way...Well, in one way, I agree with what he's saying about the importance of symbols and being a good role-model.
But how does that matter vis-a-vis what we've been discussing in this thread? If Destruction Man is about to destroy the city and you let him go through with it because you refuse to kill him, you're not really going to be inspiring anyone in the smoking crater that'll be left afterward.

Well, bear in mind I had to cut out a whole bunch of it in order for it to fit in the panels. And yeah, as you'll see in the next few pages, his little speech doesn't exactly move them to tears.

It's not just about being a good role model, it's a "practice what you preach" kind of thing. If we want a world where people don't kill each other for any reason whatsoever, we have to be willing to be the first ones to say "I'm not playing this game." As for Destruction Man, I suppose in the end we have to agree to disagree. I speak of idealism and I think idealism can be put into practical use, and you're talking of practicality where idealism just won't fit the bill. Neither of us is necessarily wrong, it's just a disagreement over the method. Only time will tell if either of us ultimately is correct. ^_~

[Sun tzu]

It's not just about being a good role model, it's a "practice what you preach" kind of thing. If we want a world where people don't kill each other for any reason whatsoever, we have to be willing to be the first ones to say "I'm not playing this game." As for Destruction Man, I suppose in the end we have to agree to disagree. I speak of idealism and I think idealism can be put into practical use, and you're talking of practicality where idealism just won't fit the bill. Neither of us is necessarily wrong, it's just a disagreement over the method. Only time will tell if either of us ultimately is correct. ^_~

So, what? You'd argue in favor of letting Destruction Man kill millions? "Not killing" is actually more important than people's lives?

Like I said on another forum...I don't think any rule can safely be made into an uncompromisable absolute. All too often, making the right choice is about making the right compromise between several values. If you give one value infinite priority, it'll get you to do the wrong thing eventually. To put in other words: Not killing people is important, but there are other important things in life, and sometimes, they'll go against no killing people. Sometimes, they'll be more important.

[Alschroeder]

Things'll get interesting when Lightbringer finds out Mindmistress HAS killed, although she didn't make a habit of it, and that to save the life of a little girl who had been horribly murdered, by sacrificing the life of her abuser. ---Al
PS. Yes, I did mean to type in "when" not "if". It's already planned, albeit tentatively.

[Linkara]

Things'll get interesting when Lightbringer finds out Mindmistress HAS killed, although she didn't make a habit of it, and that to save the life of a little girl who had been horribly murdered, by sacrificing the life of her abuser. ---Al
PS. Yes, I did mean to type in "when" not "if". It's already planned, albeit tentatively.

Ideed.

So, what? You'd argue in favor of letting Destruction Man kill millions? "Not killing" is actually more important than people's lives?

Like I said on another forum...I don't think any rule can safely be made into an uncompromisable absolute. All too often, making the right choice is about making the right compromise between several values. If you give one value infinite priority, it'll get you to do the wrong thing eventually. To put in other words: Not killing people is important, but there are other important things in life, and sometimes, they'll go against no killing people. Sometimes, they'll be more important.

Sun, we're going around in circles. I've already told you that I always think there's another way besides killing. You've told me that sometimes there isn't and that there should be other values considered. I've told you about the idea of forgiveness vs. justification, you've told me it's a cop-out. On and on and on. Neither of us is getting any closer to convincing the other. ^^;

[Alschroeder]

So did Lightbringer just BLIND his foes? I can see several variations of this. Temporary blinding by the intensity of flash (wouldn't last long enough), total scorching of the retinas which would cause permanent blindness (I think unlikely given LB's generally pacifistic and moralistic stand) or control of the light in front of the eyes, which would blind them until he decided they were ready to behave in a socially-acceptale manner. TRue, LB hasn't shown THAT much control of light before, but he's just learning....

I think it's the third.---Al

[Linkara]

So did Lightbringer just BLIND his foes? I can see several variations of this. Temporary blinding by the intensity of flash (wouldn't last long enough), total scorching of the retinas which would cause permanent blindness (I think unlikely given LB's generally pacifistic and moralistic stand) or control of the light in front of the eyes, which would blind them until he decided they were ready to behave in a socially-acceptale manner. TRue, LB hasn't shown THAT much control of light before, but he's just learning....

I think it's the third.---Al

Yep, option 3. He's preventing any light from hitting their eyes.

[Alschroeder]

I'm sort of reminded of Alan Moore's run on SWAMP THING, where John Constantine showed Swampy that he was a plant elemental, and taught him all SORTS of tricks he didn't realize he could do with his powers...

Pretty awesome, Lewis. And makes LB a little more ...unique.

By the way, Mindmistress shouldn't be the only one able to create illusions among the heroes of CROSSOVERLORD, if LB can control LIGHT...although I imagine he'd have to practice a lot to get it right. ---Al

[Sun tzu]

Yeah. Creating illusions should be possible, but also very hard, given the number of details...Plus, you wouldn't have any sound.

[Linkara]

Yeah. Creating illusions should be possible, but also very hard, given the number of details...Plus, you wouldn't have any sound.

Mmhmm. Hence why Lightbringer also doesn't pull the "blinding you" trick very often. He has to keep light from hitting the eyes of four of them, while they're all moving around. It requires a lot of effort, a lot of concentration, and etc. Of course, as Lightbringer develops his powers more and uses them more often, they'll become more second nature to him. For example, in the next storyline, this'll be shown by a change in the effect of the light glow around his hands.

[Wandering Observer]

It's been far too long since I've posted. Lewis, as with any A priori argument, I think your concepts would be far stronger with example. The Gentleman's powers were a fraction of light bringer's powers, the slavers had no power at all, and the dark bringer was beaten by (an admittedly bad ass) use of magic handcuffs. When are we going to see Lightbringer cop out of killing someone with a clever way out instead of powers?

(Smiling man of course does not count, since for the moment he's still alive.)

p.s.
Sorry if it sounded like I was being overly critical/sarcastic on the message feed; I was sincere when I posted. Please remember that you are improving at a phenomenal rate. I certainly disagree on a few things here or there, but despite my criticisms, you have a webcomic, you've written novels. If this is what you want to do for a living, you might have a long way to go. But look at how far you have come; look at how much you have improved. Know that I will never tell you to give up these dreams; I will never tell you to quit. At the end of the day, I want you to succeed, and if you need help, I'll do my best to be there to give you a hand. I criticize because the harder an experience is, the more valuable the knowledge gained, and I know you can take it.

On a related note, I haven't seen you in about a semester. You need to join me for a cup of coffee soon.

[Linkara]

It's been far too long since I've posted. Lewis, as with any A priori argument, I think your concepts would be far stronger with example. The Gentleman's powers were a fraction of light bringer's powers, the slavers had no power at all, and the dark bringer was beaten by (an admittedly bad ass) use of magic handcuffs. When are we going to see Lightbringer cop out of killing someone with a clever way out instead of powers?

(Smiling man of course does not count, since for the moment he's still alive.)

p.s.
Sorry if it sounded like I was being overly critical/sarcastic on the message feed; I was sincere when I posted. Please remember that you are improving at a phenomenal rate. I certainly disagree on a few things here or there, but despite my criticisms, you have a webcomic, you've written novels. If this is what you want to do for a living, you might have a long way to go. But look at how far you have come; look at how much you have improved. Know that I will never tell you to give up these dreams; I will never tell you to quit. At the end of the day, I want you to succeed, and if you need help, I'll do my best to be there to give you a hand. I criticize because the harder an experience is, the more valuable the knowledge gained, and I know you can take it.

On a related note, I haven't seen you in about a semester. You need to join me for a cup of coffee soon.

The Smiling Man will be dealt with in a non-murderous way over in Crossoverlord. ^_~

And I certainly appreciate the criticisms. They help keep me on my toes. ^_~ And I of course have no intention of giving up on my dreams, especially since I may have something to actually announce in the near future in furtherance of my goals.

As for examples, a better one will be coming up in the next storyline. Though also bear in mind that six supervillains have now been taken down, all of them non-lethally (with the exception of Firedemon, who was never really alive).