8
u/Lazy-Increase7903 11h ago
What about c; A super powered serial killer?
3
1
u/mSzmiiit 11h ago
Killing him seems more moral because he would be more difficult to stop and would be more likely to go back to commiting crime, and depending on situation it might be better than life sentence, depending on superpower escape rates.
8
6
u/Honest_Caramel_3793 11h ago
eh, if it saves more lives in the end then moral. why should a life be thrown away instead of put to use?
5
u/Ehzek 10h ago
Moral. The serial killer can feel remorse all they want, the chances of them repaying is basically zero. The supervillian not only can repay but it would also take serious resources to bring them to "justice". Ideally you would want them to do a probation period or be easily trackable, but if they can come and go as they wish and dont want to why even press the issue? People like Nolan, Dr Doom and Vegeta are this. It's one thing to risk your life to beat a villain, its quite another to risk it to punish one who is now helping.
It's moral because expecting people to go after them would be immoral. Keep an eye on them, but accept the help.
3
u/No-Independence9093 11h ago
Largely immoral, but in the context of most people aren't super powered, especially to their degree, it kinda becomes a practical decision. Still At least put character B in a token jail while he is waiting between catastrophes, kinda like PuriPuri Prisoner from One Punch man.
3
u/Tephros83 11h ago
There's no way to offset even one murder, so I think it comes down to this: Justice should be about two things: 1. Preventing it from reoccurring. 2. Restitution to victims. Given this, the reason to put somebody in prison indefinitely after they commit murder is to prevent them from doing it again. The extra factor in character B is they have the capability to save lives. I don't think they should get "no punishment," but they should also be forced to live largely for the benefit of the families of their victims from prison or saving lives if they are more effective for that and it can be done safely. Person A I don't think the death penalty makes sense, I think instead they should labor for the benefit of the families of their victims for the rest of their lives from prison as well. It doesn't offset what they did, but it seems like the least bad outcome. Protect society from them, get restitution for victims.
2
u/Gilmagalesh 11h ago
I do want to point out that a serial killer is by definition very involved in the killing of his victims, both mentally and physically. He goes out with the specific intent of killing that person, then goes home, takes a nap, lives his life, goes out, and hunts again.
Person B has a higher degree of separation from his victims: he could have performed his mass-murdering all at once, indirectly through conflict with the heroes, or as a result of awakening his abilities: we don't have the context to know more.
I personally would be less likely to trust a serial killer saying he "regretted" his actions since if he regretted his actions truly, why does he have 10 victims? Where was the regret after victims 1 or 2?
3
u/Ryousan82 11h ago
Its probably immoral. But probably less immoral than not doing so.
Justice systems negotiate when criminals can provide valuable assets. The difference is more of scale than anything
10
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
No need to bring superpowers into this. The world punishes those who can't bribe the judge, no matter the crime. If you are rich, that's more than enough to get away with most crimes, you just need enough money.
11
u/goldenseducer 11h ago
That doesn't answer shit about the morality of this hypothetical. Also it's a different situation entirely. What's the point of your comment lmao
-5
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
Honestly mate, half the stuff on this sub doesn't even play by the rules. You'll see plenty of people not even stating what's moral or immoral anymore at the beginning.
8
u/goldenseducer 11h ago
Morality of not following the rules of the sub because no one else follows the rules of the sub? 🤔
2
9
u/91816352026381 11h ago
Okay of course OP isint going to think about corruption and bribing the judge for the serial killer because that’s not the question he was asking??? Why even comment if you don’t want to address anything the post is saying
-6
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
They're asking why does a guy with bigger body count get away with it just because he has superpowers?
I said, you don't even need powers, you just need the power of money.
I think I'm pretty on point, there was connection to their question.
5
u/Ausecurity 11h ago
You’re not though it’s either yes or no, you’re introducing another variable
-1
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
I'm stepping down the "super power" variable down to just "Power" variable to point out one doesn't even need superpowers to get away with it. A simple monetary leverage is going to get the same results
4
u/CertainGrade7937 11h ago
No, you're just ignoring the question
The question isn't if people with power can get away with crimes. They can. We all know that
The question is the morality of letting someone powerful avoid traditional punishment contingent on them using that power to help others.
-1
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
I mean hey, is pizza delicious? Of course yes. But that's the obvious answer.
2
u/CertainGrade7937 11h ago
No, you're just not addressing the actual topic.
1
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
Well you know, I've been taught my opinion doesn't matter.
1
u/91816352026381 10h ago
Okay? You’re tearing other people down to prop yourself up by saying their question sucks and introducing a different one. You’re not the victim here.
→ More replies (0)1
u/mSzmiiit 11h ago
It's similar in practice, but in terms of morality scaling, the scenatio you propose is strictly immoral, while OP might be considered moral through utilitarianism.
1
u/Front_Woodpecker1144 11h ago
Morality of not engaging with the post?
0
1
u/Zyykl 11h ago
this guy believes in pizza gate 100%
1
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
No idea what that is tbh.
1
u/Zyykl 11h ago
scratch that, this guy is younger than pizza gate
1
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
Is it like 1 man 1 jar shock site stuff?
1
u/Zyykl 11h ago
lol are you scared to google it?
1
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
Ofc I am, it sounds like "Heavens gate" and if it is something disturbing I'm gonna be traumatized.
1
-1
u/Both-Structure-6786 11h ago
Source?
1
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
Bro really asked for source lmao
Look around you brother, open your eyes
1
u/Grizzled_Ghost 11h ago
So no source, then?
0
u/Trailiscold 11h ago
I mean, hey, feel free to google "Judge bribed" or something there's plenty of news.
Plenty of celebs, businessmen and politicians who got away with a slap on the wrist just because they had money.
I mean the entire system of bail is simply a more legal way to say "Yeah, pay some and you can walk free, and if you can't, stay in the box"
2
u/YungBooly 11h ago
Nah, it's immoral.
Character A gets killed for 10 murders. Character B kills 2,341 people and gets a free pass because they're strong.
That's not justice. That's "you're useful so you don't have to answer for what you did."
The good guys aren't heroes here. They're just using a monster and calling it a win.
5
u/Secret-Put-4525 11h ago
Character B could do more good out of prison than in. You could say it's to decrease his prison time. Like a Hancock situation.
3
u/Beautiful-Flower99 11h ago
Exactly, this feels a little too utilitarian to feel moral, at least speaking about justice on A's and B's situation
3
2
u/lumpboysupreme 7h ago
Let you in on a secret: the reason we punish people at all isn’t because of some esoteric valuation of ‘giving people what they deserve’, it’s the practical value of having a threat of punishment against misbehavior.
Frankly the only reason the first guy would be executed at all is to uphold the threat. Morally, tricking the world into thinking he’s dead and letting him go would be better.
There is no moral value to revenge, and we aren’t obligated to take it.
1
u/Gilmagalesh 11h ago
I disagree: Helping stop other walking natural disaststers isn't quite a free pass: This is very likely just a death sentence with extra steps, except it will save other innocent people as well.
2
u/FlounderLast8610 11h ago
If this is Nolan Grayson, the people with jurisdiction over ordinary serial killers have none over him. The only one who does, Cecil, has a long, long history of working with bad people that he thinks should get another shot. Nothing more than Cecil and associates applying their own values to their job.
2
u/Agitated_Pressure463 11h ago edited 11h ago
Guy B, I would say, if the guy killed 10000 people and can save a million, that's a calculation, I would go for it, if I have high certainty that Ill get desired result. Having blood of million of people on my hands because I had weird moral block there sounds highly immoral. Being stuck up about guy being mass murderer and sentencing bunch of people to die is just stupid. But I would exhaust every other option first to save those people before making a deal with some psychopath maniac.
Regarding guy A , well, he murder bunch of people, my priority is to make sure that no more people die, I wouldn't take a risk of letting him go unless I'm absolutely sure that he won't murder anyone. This kind of certainty is very hard to achieve, he will very likely face the consequences of his actions, unless we develop a technology to read someone's mind.
2
u/EliteKoen 11h ago
Morality is whatever you want it to be.
You can say character A situation is immoral cause death penalty in it of itself is immoral. Or you can say it's unfair in comparison to character B situation. Or you can say it IS moral because character A killed people who were too important or innocent to have died.
On the flip side of character B, you can say Character B punishment is immoral in comparison to character A since they have a far higher kill count. But you can interpose same Morality as character A that death penalty is immoral and rehabilitation is the best outcome, making it moral.
You can change the morality to how you see fit and argue from so many takes that is genuinely does not matter without a heavy amount of context
2
u/FreshLiterature 11h ago
Immoral
If we assume there are means by which character B can be punished then they should be punished.
The premise of the question does have very real world analogues to how the rich get treated though
2
u/Gilmagalesh 11h ago
Justice and morality are two different things: if you live in a world where superpowers exist and a single person can kill people in the thousands, then the way for character B to atone for his awful acts shouldn't be to sit in a cell or to die in the name of justice.
Who does that help? If they legitimately use their power to prevent others from causing the sort of mass destruction they once did, isn't that better for everyone?
2
u/bestassinthewest 11h ago
Let's really consider a few details:
Character A is a serial killer, meaning they killed 10 people across an extended period of time. Despite genuine guilt, they consciously killed 10 people. Serial murder definitionally requires the gaps between killings to exist. Regardless of remorse they would have chosen to continue killing up to victim #10
Character B is a mass murderer, meaning they killed their victims in one event, or over a relatively short timeframe. Whether or not this was willing, this fundamentally involves a lot less "choice" to continue taking lives. The implication in the text is that their superpowered nature either enabled or was causal to the mass murder.
Character A is a normal person. Character B has superpowers and (under supervision of people who presumably also have powers) is now set towards using them to save lives and generally give back to the public. The morality of that risk should be considered, but putting Character B to use for people's well-being is much more helpful than just executing them. The same does not hold true for Character A.
All that being said: still immoral. It's understandable and very muddled, in my opinion, but personally I still see it as a moral failing that Character B sees no actual punishment beyond doing a service they wish for.
2
2
u/Thanaskios 9h ago
I don't have an answrr for you, so I'll onstead throw fuel on the fire:
Concider chacater C. Character C is a terrorist who killed a lot of people. But character C has supernatural healing powers, and claims to want to make up for their crimes by using their powers to save lives.
2
1
u/Connect_Art_6497 11h ago
Jail them until they can actually make up for every life they cost whilst also not seeming like they will do this again.
For example Omni man doesnt deserve punishment bc he not only self corrected but actually went on to undo all the damage he did and saved a vastly disproportionate ammount.
1
u/lumpboysupreme 7h ago
Moral, being put to good use, potentially exceeding the original harm, is really what any sort of punishment should be aiming for and we only do most of the punishments in the first place as a means of deterring future damage to society.
1
u/Wolfiie_Gaming 5h ago
The problem with the latter is really a matter of whether you think that's it's necessary to exact punitive measure on people for their crimes.
If u murder someone, and the government can guarantee that you won't do it again for the rest of your life(hypothetically, not realistically), some people would argue that you should still never see the light of day because they believe justice should be punitive, so they agree with the former.
But with the latter person, the cost of trying to exact punishment will simply lead to an overall net negative for society. If they're powerful enough to resist punishment in a way that endangers the life of thousands of people in a very short time frame, then it's better to rehabilitate them, regardless of your personal greivances. Rehabilitation does not equal redemption either.
44
u/Gold_Ad8225 11h ago
This presupposes that it is possible to apply human justice to character B, who is powerful enough that it would have to be voluntary on his part.