"Superman..." or NOT?

[Ken Carman]

This is a spin off from my most recent Inspection column, which you will find amongst the blogs, or click on the links below. But I believe the topic, in itself, to be important since I believe there are metaphors amongst the Superman myth that relate to Conservative vs. Liberal perspectives and power abuse vs. use in society. Here's a quote that you can use to leap off of and into the discussion, or click your digital heels on either link below the quote and review the whole column, then discuss...

“Super” hero stories usually leave me a little miffed, at best. There’s always a central premise where we as a society; us poor peons… are absolutely inept, unable, dimwitted and too pansy-like to solve our own problems. The crucial assumption is that we have to have some big super Daddy, on a rare occasion super Mommy, to pull our tuckus out of that damn fire we keep sitting in again, and again, and again. Super villains are almost always just so damn good that we have to have someone super to defeat them, because we are always so damn foolish and helpless. Those who deeply believe in this myth have obviously missed all the stories about bank robbers who return a short while later to pick up their baseball caps they left at the scene of the crime. The superbeing premise only reinforces the message being foisted upon us by politicians and other power mongers who wish to pay less attention to fanatics boarding planes, and more attention to screwing us out of our freedoms while their election-based propaganda depicts such efforts as worthy of “super” saviors. Obviously the phrase, “I’m the decider,” comes to mind. Too often such pundits and pols behave a lot like someone who is eager to be our “personal” butcher who is also applying to herd us too, claiming we are just lost little sheep… unable to find our way (to the slaughterhouse) without his help. We’re probably somewhat safe, until he wishes to make profit or get us out of his way.

[Epistemologist]

Indeed, most of those who claim to be altruistic are actually quite selfish in their motivations e.g. of profit, of fame, etc. And when people look to them as quasi-saviors, they're also selfish by satisfying their innate insecurities.

[phoenix_fire]

Then I take it Spiderman appeals to you?

[Milton Bradley]

( deleted )

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Then I take it Spiderman appeals to you?

Yes, for a slightly different reason. While the movie take on Spiderman appeals to me because Toby Mcguire's take on Spiderman is filled with all the angst and problems one has as a teen, or just past teen. The powers he has actually make it more difficult to learn the lessons one must learn at that age. I view him as noble, yet flawed, as we all are. There's enough of that to keep me from barfing at the "oh, give me a break" moments.

Honestly? I haven't read the comic.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Milton Bradley ( deleted )

Huh?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Epistemologist Indeed, most of those who claim to be altruistic are actually quite selfish in their motivations e.g. of profit, of fame, etc. And when people look to them as quasi-saviors, they're also selfish by satisfying their innate insecurities.

That wouldn't be altruism. Altruism is where you place others above yours as a priority, if that makes sense. For example, it is not altruistic to give a starving man a loaf of bread if you have bread to spare. It is altruistic to give a starving man your bread when your own child is starving. That is a sacrifice, that is altruism.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: G. Adams That wouldn't be altruism. Altruism is where you place others above yours as a priority, if that makes sense. For example, it is not altruistic to give a starving man a loaf of bread if you have bread to spare. It is altruistic to give a starving man your bread when your own child is starving. That is a sacrifice, that is altruism.

Or it's when Mr. Gore says something based on fact, which would be an Al True... oh, never mind.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Ken Carman Huh?

Oh, I typed up some long winded post that was basically just me agreeing with the premise, and it got lost in a lag bullet when I hit the post button after a spelling edit.


I'm not in the mood to enter it all in again.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Oh, I typed up some long winded post that was basically just me agreeing with the premise, and it got lost in a lag bullet when I hit the post button after a spelling edit. I'm not in the mood to enter it all in again.

Damn, I hate that. My computer at home has a habit of getting so clogged with simple stuff I'll wind up losing "long winded" stuff... even an occasional column. This one has a habit of just deleting stuff... evn whole columns, for no apparent reason, and then acting as if it's all on the up and up. I'm normally not a violent man, but if it were mine...

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: G. Adams That wouldn't be altruism. Altruism is where you place others above yours as a priority, if that makes sense. For example, it is not altruistic to give a starving man a loaf of bread if you have bread to spare. It is altruistic to give a starving man your bread when your own child is starving. That is a sacrifice, that is altruism.

Well of course spare resources could still be used in other ways; as they donate spare resources, people are still seen as philanthropic altruists for their efforts, which could be used in other ways that explicitly benefit only themselves. Thus, people have the impression that such givers are altruists as they seem to place others above themselves, but it's usually just a lie, since there is selfishness is the fundamental motive for their action.

As for superheros like Superman, they could be using their powers to explicitly help themselves, e.g. rob a bank, or just not do any effort since they want to avoid danger. The opportunity cost for their seemingly heroic actions are explicitly selfish acts; that's when the public calls them bona fide altruists. Indeed, I reiterate that they most often aren't.

[Chaossaber314]

As for superheros like Superman, they could be using their powers to explicitly help themselves, e.g. rob a bank, or just not do any effort since they want to avoid danger. The opportunity cost for their seemingly heroic actions are explicitly selfish acts; that's when the public calls them bona fide altruists. Indeed, I reiterate that they most often aren't.

Just because they happen to arrive at opportunities that are well published doesn't mean these are the only times they intervene. I remember seeing several instances of Spiderman and Batman (who granted doesn't have superpowers) saving a random stranger who's getting mugged on the street. There's no press. There's no one there to record the deed. Hell, the individual is probably not even going to be believed by his friends and family.

"You guys are never going to believe what just happened! I was walking down eighth when some guy put a knife to my throat and told me I need to give him my wallet. I was about to do it when somebody in a costume grabbed him from behind and knocked him into a nearby brick wall. I think it was Spiderman!"
"Suuuuuurrree... it was."

Also the very nature of the secret identity insures that they never receive the fame and benefits from a well publicized good deed.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Just because they happen to arrive at opportunities that are well published doesn't mean these are the only times they intervene. I remember seeing several instances of Spiderman and Batman (who granted doesn't have superpowers) saving a random stranger who's getting mugged on the street. There's no press. There's no one there to record the deed. Hell, the individual is probably not even going to be believed by his friends and family. "You guys are never going to believe what just happened! I was walking down eighth when some guy put a knife to my throat and told me I need to give him my wallet. I was about to do it when somebody in a costume grabbed him from behind and knocked him into a nearby brick wall. I think it was Spiderman!" "Suuuuuurrree... it was." Also the very nature of the secret identity insures that they never receive the fame and benefits from a well publicized good deed.

Actually, yeah, I was just watching Spiderman 2 right now, and I saw something like that. Well remember, superheros are just ideals for human behavior. They're archetypes that we might try to follow. But they're not accurate approximations of actual behavior. They're not real.

So maybe my critique of Superman, et al is flawed (although there are still some exceptions i.e. some more realistic comic book characters), but my critique of real people stands.

[Chaossaber314]

Yeah, and I agree with the argument as to real people.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Epistemologist Well of course spare resources could still be used in other ways; as they donate spare resources, people are still seen as philanthropic altruists for their efforts, which could be used in other ways that explicitly benefit only themselves. Thus, people have the impression that such givers are altruists as they seem to place others above themselves, but it's usually just a lie, since there is selfishness is the fundamental motive for their action. As for superheros like Superman, they could be using their powers to explicitly help themselves, e.g. rob a bank, or just not do any effort since they want to avoid danger. The opportunity cost for their seemingly heroic actions are explicitly selfish acts; that's when the public calls them bona fide altruists. Indeed, I reiterate that they most often aren't.

I still don't think you understand altruism. Another example, if Superman can only save Jane Doe or Lois Lane, to be altruistic he would have to pick Jane Doe. He has put someone elses priorities above his own.

True altruists are sacrificial lambs to others, and are not to be encouraged.

[Compugasm]

The crucial assumption is that we have to have some big super Daddy, on a rare occasion super Mommy, to pull our tuckus out of that damn fire we keep sitting in again, and again, and again.

I think this is way more than an assumption. I'd say it's pretty much fact. Even Superman needs to be saved.

[Zhavric]

“Super” hero stories usually leave me a little miffed, at best. There’s always a central premise where we as a society; us poor peons… are absolutely inept, unable, dimwitted and too pansy-like to solve our own problems. The crucial assumption is that we have to have some big super Daddy, on a rare occasion super Mommy, to pull our tuckus out of that damn fire we keep sitting in again, and again, and again. Super villains...

Well, there you go. You answered your own rant.

Super villains are MEANT to be too big for human beings to deal with, but this isn't anything new. What do we do when we come home to find our house ablaze? We call the fire department. Vandalized? The police. So, why not call in super powered individuals to deal with other super powered individuals?

And the alternative is fairly lame.

There's a comic called "Stormwatch: Team Achilles" which is about people who are (mostly) human taking on super-powered individuals... and the comic sucks. Why? Because the gadgets & tactics the humans use to disarm / neutralize the bad guys BECOME a kind of "power". "You have magic flying powers. I have a magic off-switch." *beating ensues*

are almost always just so damn good that we have to have someone super to defeat them, because we are always so damn foolish and helpless. Those who deeply believe in this myth have obviously missed all the stories about bank robbers who return a short while later to pick up their baseball caps they left at the scene of the crime.

O_o

Okay, so what I'm hearing from this post and others you made is that you don't read a lot of comic books. I suggest you read more Warren Ellis. He's one of the most talented guys in the industry right now and has written some of the best comics ever penned... like Transmetropolitan and The Authority* .

The superbeing premise only reinforces the message being foisted upon us by politicians and other power mongers who wish to pay less attention to fanatics boarding planes, and more attention to screwing us out of our freedoms while their election-based propaganda depicts such efforts as worthy of “super” saviors.

Honestly, you REALLY need to read Transmetropolitan.

Obviously the phrase, “I’m the decider,” comes to mind. Too often such pundits and pols behave a lot like someone who is eager to be our “personal” butcher who is also applying to herd us too, claiming we are just lost little sheep… unable to find our way (to the slaughterhouse) without his help. We’re probably somewhat safe, until he wishes to make profit or get us out of his way.

What in the world does that have to do with comics?


*VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: The Authority run that was written by Ellis is amazing. The Authority NOT written by Ellis is COMPLETE crap. You have been warned.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: G. Adams I still don't think you understand altruism. Another example, if Superman can only save Jane Doe or Lois Lane, to be altruistic he would have to pick Jane Doe. He has put someone elses priorities above his own. True altruists are sacrificial lambs to others, and are not to be encouraged.

He has a reason for picking Jane Doe though, for humans often don't act just for the sake of acting. Perhaps that reason is subconscious. Maybe saving Jane will make him more honorable to others. Maybe Jane is hotter than Lois. Maybe Jane has more money in her purse. But yes, like I said, there is pure altruism.

I think I do understand altruism as I mentioned that an altruistic individual commits a quasi-unselfish act despite the high opportunity cost of explicitly selfish acts. Yes, he/she therefore puts other's priorities above his/her own. However, we often see people who seem to be doing this yet have some other selfish ulterior motive.

It's also hard to gauge one's altruism. For instance, if Superman had to decide between allowing fifty people to be crushed by a train or allowing himself to be crushed by a train, would be be a utilitarian altruist for allowing himself to live? I mean, if he realized that surviving would allow him to save more than fifty people later on his life, then in the long-run, he'd be putting society's priorities above his own.

Also, most superheroes bypass such difficult choices by saving both entities anyway, e.g. Spiderman saved both Mary Jane and the train full of people in the first Spiderman movie. Is he more of an altruist than a person who saves only one?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Epistemologist He has a reason for picking Jane Doe though, for humans often don't act just for the sake of acting. Perhaps that reason is subconscious. Maybe saving Jane will make him more honorable to others. Maybe Jane is hotter than Lois. Maybe Jane has more money in her purse. But yes, like I said, there is pure altruism. I think I do understand altruism as I mentioned that an altruistic individual commits a quasi-unselfish act despite the high opportunity cost of explicitly selfish acts. Yes, he/she therefore puts other's priorities above his/her own. However, we often see people who seem to be doing this yet have some other selfish ulterior motive. It's also hard to gauge one's altruism. For instance, if Superman had to decide between allowing fifty people to be crushed by a train or allowing himself to be crushed by a train, would be be a utilitarian altruist for allowing himself to live? I mean, if he realized that surviving would allow him to save more than fifty people later on his life, then in the long-run, he'd be putting society's priorities above his own. Also, most superheroes bypass such difficult choices by saving both entities anyway, e.g. Spiderman saved both Mary Jane and the train full of people in the first Spiderman movie. Is he more of an altruist than a person who saves only one?

Once you start considering those side benefits as important, it is no longer altruism. Quite possibly philanthropy, but not altruism.

It is not altruistic for me to risk my life to save something important to me, be it lover, friend, family, strangers or country. If they are more important to me than my life, then I am not acting altruistically.

So, regarding your examples: If Jane Doe is hotter than Lois, or any of the given possibilities, then she has moved to the top of Supermans priorities. It would not be altruistic.

The train example is a dilemma, rather than selecting altruism. If the people on board the train were highly important to him, like his parents or Lois, then it would become altruism. It would also be pretty damned evil to let those he loved die for the sake of society. Altruism is not good.

Of course most superheroes bypass examples of altruism, they are written to be larger than life. As I said, a more real example of altruism would be to let your child die to save a strangers child. That is altruism, that is evil.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: G. Adams Of course most superheroes bypass examples of altruism, they are written to be larger than life. As I said, a more real example of altruism would be to let your child die to save a strangers child. That is altruism, that is evil.

In the utilitarian sense, one might say it's not evil, since more of "others" are saved. Nonetheless, altruists often don't have to deal with a clear dilemma like Spiderman and the falling train. No matter what, they'd be helping others in a sense. However, I was saying that altruism is quite rare because most quasi-altruists who seem to invariably help others are actually helping themselves as well due to ulterior motives.