But Superman isn’t, in typical Superman stories. Superman just doesn’t do the kind of things that would be done by someone who’s really in it for themselves but is trying to justify it as needed for the greater good.
The point I am making is that “might makes right, and right is this ideology that I have which involves various things that I claim are good” is still “might makes right”. Superman isn’t “in it for himself”, he’s in it for other people—which in fact is much worse.
When do we see Superman exhibit a careful consideration of what steps are reasonable to take to minimize property damage?
Probably most of the time. Few Superman stories show people complaining about the damage Superman causes, and I don’t think that’s because Superman would beat them up. Just because there isn’t a word balloon saying “I must minimize the damage!” doesn’t change this.
Well of course the stories don’t show people complaining about it, because the writers don’t want their audience to be thinking about this stuff! And that’s because people who do start thinking about it quite often come to the conclusion that actually, the way that superheroes behave w.r.t. property damage is actually quite seriously messed up.
What we see of the behavior depicted in most superhero stories is that property damage is routinely excessive. I mean, this is a well-known trope (and often parodied/deconstructed/etc., too).
The point I am making is that “might makes right, and right is this ideology that I have which involves various things that I claim are good” is still “might makes right”. Superman isn’t “in it for himself”, he’s in it for other people—which in fact is much worse.
Central examples of might makes right have many prominent aspects that are absent from what Superman does, even if in some technical sense it’s “might makes right”. Being in it for other people is one of those, but I mentioned several others.
Well, I already responded to those other points also, so I am not sure what else to say to this…
At this point, I can’t tell if you’re just objecting to my terminology, or what… do you just dislike the use of the term “might makes right” here? Is there some other formulation which you feel better captures my point? Or is your objection deeper somehow…?
The connotation is all that stuff I described. “Might makes right” implies that it is being done for personal gain, not for good, and that there aren’t limits to it beyond the use of more might.
And what term would you prefer for the phenomenon which I described?
You could call him a one man nanny state. But I would disagree that even this accurately describes Superman. Just like Superman doesn’t casually do bad things for personal gain, he doesn’t casually do them to benefit others. Stories where Superman runs the world as a dictatorship are explicitly meant as Superman being evil.
The connotation is all that stuff I described. “Might makes right” implies that it is being done for personal gain, not for good, and that there aren’t limits to it beyond the use of more might.
I see. Well, uh… I disagree. “Might makes right” implies literally none of those things, in my opinion.
And what term would you prefer for the phenomenon which I described?
You could call him a one man nanny state. But I would disagree that even this accurately describes Superman.
I agree that calling Superman a “one man nanny state” would be inaccurate, and I would certainly not use any such term.
Just like Superman doesn’t casually do bad things for personal gain, he doesn’t casually do them to benefit others.
I agree that calling Superman a “one man nanny state” would be inaccurate, and I would certainly not use any such term.
It’s inaccurate for how Superman typically behaves, but it’s accurate in that it matches your claims about him. You said:
The point I am making is that “might makes right, and right is this ideology that I have which involves various things that I claim are good” is still “might makes right”. Superman isn’t “in it for himself”, he’s in it for other people—which in fact is much worse.
The term for a government which harms people for their own good is a nanny state. Superman doing similar things all on his own using his great power makes him a one man nanny state.
The point I am making is that “might makes right, and right is this ideology that I have which involves various things that I claim are good” is still “might makes right”. Superman isn’t “in it for himself”, he’s in it for other people—which in fact is much worse.
Well of course the stories don’t show people complaining about it, because the writers don’t want their audience to be thinking about this stuff! And that’s because people who do start thinking about it quite often come to the conclusion that actually, the way that superheroes behave w.r.t. property damage is actually quite seriously messed up.
What we see of the behavior depicted in most superhero stories is that property damage is routinely excessive. I mean, this is a well-known trope (and often parodied/deconstructed/etc., too).
Central examples of might makes right have many prominent aspects that are absent from what Superman does, even if in some technical sense it’s “might makes right”. Being in it for other people is one of those, but I mentioned several others.
Well, I already responded to those other points also, so I am not sure what else to say to this…
At this point, I can’t tell if you’re just objecting to my terminology, or what… do you just dislike the use of the term “might makes right” here? Is there some other formulation which you feel better captures my point? Or is your objection deeper somehow…?
Your term carries with it an inaccurate connotation.
(And if you didn’t intend that connotation, it doesn’t make sense as a criticism of Superman or a reason to call him evil anyway.)
What is the connotation?
EDIT: And what term would you prefer for the phenomenon which I described?
The connotation is all that stuff I described. “Might makes right” implies that it is being done for personal gain, not for good, and that there aren’t limits to it beyond the use of more might.
You could call him a one man nanny state. But I would disagree that even this accurately describes Superman. Just like Superman doesn’t casually do bad things for personal gain, he doesn’t casually do them to benefit others. Stories where Superman runs the world as a dictatorship are explicitly meant as Superman being evil.
I see. Well, uh… I disagree. “Might makes right” implies literally none of those things, in my opinion.
I agree that calling Superman a “one man nanny state” would be inaccurate, and I would certainly not use any such term.
Indeed; nor did I claim otherwise.
It’s inaccurate for how Superman typically behaves, but it’s accurate in that it matches your claims about him. You said:
The term for a government which harms people for their own good is a nanny state. Superman doing similar things all on his own using his great power makes him a one man nanny state.
It does not.
A “nanny state” style government is not literally the only scenario in which someone does something to someone else for that person’s own good.