TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Comes Great Repsonsiblity: A Broken Aesop?

Go To

Ezekiel Since: Jan, 2001
#51: Feb 28th 2011 at 4:11:02 PM

Then define it for me. What did this veteran from your example do? Keep in mind any kind of mugging, robbery, or other armed crime can very easily turn into manslaughter.

You can't be lenient on criminals just because you pity them - because if you don't do something, whatever that may be, you take the very real risk that most of them will just do it again.

And since we're talking about the punishment, all of this is really outside of the purview of a superhero's responsibility anyway, since they act as at most the arresting officer. Except She-Hulk and Daredevil.

edited 28th Feb '11 4:11:27 PM by Ezekiel

Anomalocaris20 from Sagittarius A* Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: Love blinded me (with science!)
#52: Feb 28th 2011 at 4:17:58 PM

Motivation is a big part, of course. All crimes are not equal. But not even desperation can justify putting lives at risk like that. The 60-year-old vet may need food to live, but there are ways to gain food that don't involve mugging or robbery. And stopping a crime isn't "punch someone in the face." Violence is the last resort if they don't surrender at the sight of someone strong enough to toss cars or equipped with power armor. And even then you only use enough force to incapacitate them.

As for other sources of food for the vet, all the more reason that I think instead of planting random fruitless trees on sidewalk areas we should plant trees that bear edible fruit for anyone to take. Preferably a decent enough mix to provide fruit for most of the year. Unrealistic, I know, but it would be kinda cool. Wouldn't solve world hunger anyway, but it would at least provide some food.

edited 28th Feb '11 4:20:45 PM by Anomalocaris20

You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#53: Feb 28th 2011 at 6:38:01 PM

Not all crimes are equal and not all criminals are necessarily wrong. Motivation means a hell of a lot more in a criminal trial than you seem to realize. For the jury, it can mean the difference between a guilty verdict and an annulment. For the judge, the difference between a ten-year prison sentence and a two-year parole. Hell, if the crime is light enough, it can mean the difference for the officer between an arrest and a warning.

Growing up in the city, I can't help but agree wholeheartedly. Black and white justice and crime is something, much like absolute black and white anything in most if not all human issues, that just does not exist in the real world. Fun to make stories about, but not too applicable in reality: you can look at the letter of the law and say "these people are evil, let's just throw them away and not think about them," but they are lives that twist and turn like all do, just in a different way - the law is both blind and distanced from reality: that's why we have lawyers.

Maybe that's why I like a healthy dose of sympathetic villains.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:45:20 PM by KnownUnknown

Ezekiel Since: Jan, 2001
#54: Feb 28th 2011 at 6:54:56 PM

No. Crimes tend to have a cause, I'll grant that, but that just makes it all the more vital that something is done about it. If you don't remedy the situation that caused the crime, it's just going to happen again, but how are you going to remedy it, and at whose expense? The victim's? That's not how justice works by any definition. And are you going to give someone something because they were willing to hurt someone to take it? And in any case surely you can't intend to argue that a crime shouldn't be stopped, which is what the superheroes do in the first place. Even if you're not going to send criminals to prison, that doesn't mean you should just let them rob and loot because they've had a hard life. How do you even know why they're committing the crime if you don't arrest them so they can be questioned?

edited 28th Feb '11 6:57:12 PM by Ezekiel

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#55: Mar 1st 2011 at 3:45:08 AM

If you don't remedy the situation that caused the crime, it's just going to happen again, but how are you going to remedy it, and at whose expense? The victim's? That's not how justice works by any definition.

...

Wow...

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt there and assume you didn't really mean what you just implied. Because... wow.

What do you mean by "remedy the situation?" Who's going to pay for it, hm? Disenfranchised prisoners, many of which already come from poverty stricken backgrounds? Are some to be excluded from the cost of these remedies because some others have been the victims of a crime? Like we said, it's not black and white: the world isn't separated into criminals and victims, and separating one group from another and calling it justice is... not what it claims to be.

Selective justice is not justice. It's the age old story of one aspect of the population being excluded for the benefit of another. If justice doesn't work for everyone, then it's not justice. You can say it's justice, as long as it works for you, but it's not truly so.

edited 1st Mar '11 4:07:03 AM by KnownUnknown

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#56: Mar 1st 2011 at 10:28:46 AM

The sorts of criminals being talked about here, however, are the sort that fly well below most superheroes' radars.

Ezekiel Since: Jan, 2001
#57: Mar 1st 2011 at 12:57:30 PM

I notice you're ignoring pretty much everything I said to ask the same question I did, a question which if you can't answer then you really have no business suggesting that criminals should simply be let go.

As for "remedy the situation", I mean what are you going to do with the guy? Are you just going to put him back on the street, starving again just like before, to choose whether he wants to continue dying slowly of starvation or have another crack at that bank robbery? Jail would be kinder!

And again, as Raven suggests, this is hardly relevant. We were talking about superheroes, what their responsibilities are, and how they uphold them, not about real criminals and courts - I'm quite sure that's a discussion for elsewhere.

edited 1st Mar '11 1:33:13 PM by Ezekiel

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#58: Mar 1st 2011 at 1:31:23 PM

I notice you're ignoring pretty much everything I said to ask the same question I did, a question which if you can't answer then you really have no business suggesting that criminals should simply be let go.

Oh, it's on now.

Oops, edit ninja'd and moved down there ([down][down])

edited 1st Mar '11 2:21:53 PM by KnownUnknown

Ezekiel Since: Jan, 2001
#59: Mar 1st 2011 at 1:34:39 PM

Oh, it's on now.

No, it's off now. Save yourself some embarrassment and drop the Wide-Eyed Idealist act, I'm done with this debate if you can't do it properly.

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#60: Mar 1st 2011 at 1:37:20 PM

^ Ah, over-rhetoric and condescension all in one. Very nice. I do also commends attempts to change the subject against my points earlier, and the "wide eyed idealist" comment is a nice attempt to belittle my points by designating me as an ignorant mewler, but those are a bit naturally transparent and you can' t really be faulted for not being able to avoid that.

In any case, I'll play your game.

As for "remedy the situation", I mean what are you going to do with the guy? Are you just going to put him back on the street, starving again just like before, to choose whether he wants to continue dying slowly of starvation or have another crack at that bank robbery?

Your first mistake is equating "remedying the situation" to letting the prisoner go and pretending it never happened. That's no solution, and you should know that's no solution, so unless you're being overly rhetoric, that's just an off statement.

Well, no, your first mistake is equating all crime to all other crime (as well as bringing up things and then transparently attempting to drop them), but that's a different color of fish at the moment.

I can tell you're not really in touch with what makes a criminal a criminal, at least in the real world, and that's alright, most people who don't have exposure to that sort of thing don't - in any case, remedying the situation involves changing things so that the situation which created the criminal is lessened and instead replaced with a more stable situation: community works, education, all that jazz - the reason I called you out on saying the victims shouldn't pay for it is the implication that only the people in that situation, already poverty stricken, should support and give aid to themselves, while everyone else should be exempt because they're the "victims, " which chances on xenophobic at best.

"Jail would be kinder" also shows a bit of inexposure to the prison system as well: education and rehabilitation have long been forgone int he prison system in favor of just separating off people we don't want around us - containment and punishment are the main goals for much of the prison system, and as a result, without effective measures of enriching the prisoners, jail is worse then it ever was, and when prisoners leave the system they leave worse for the ware - most ex-cons leave the system detached, uneducated, unaccepted by society, and unprepared for life outside, and poised to reenter from the moment they exit.

edited 1st Mar '11 1:51:09 PM by KnownUnknown

metaphysician Since: Oct, 2010
#61: Mar 1st 2011 at 2:58:31 PM

No offense, but there are plenty of poor people who don't become bank robbers. Poverty as a cause of crime is vastly exaggerated; usually the reason impoverished areas suffer from crime is not because poverty makes people criminal, but because poverty makes people *vulnerable*.

As for "what to do about the criminal"? Honestly, even if they are vaguely sympathetic, they still need to be punished. Not punishing a criminal is tantamount to saying "the law doesn't apply to you", and I don't care how sad your life story is, the Rule of Law is more important than your personal needs and wants.

Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#62: Mar 1st 2011 at 4:56:45 PM

^ That's because it is the main cause. Pardon the poor example, but there are people who smoke who don't get cancer, but that doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause smoking - the question isn't whether the majority of poor people decide to turn to crime to get over, but whether the majority of criminals did so because they were in a poor position and thought that that was the way to go. Not everyone can maintain - when you're at your worst, some things, negative or not, start to look really friendly.

And in any case, Ezekiel's pretty the only one one implying we're trying to say criminals shouldn't be punished - I'm just saying that people, while they deserve to be punished when they break the law, also have the right to be treated as citizens as well, if rightfully disenfranchised ones (basically, that the individual criminal shouldn't be treated as a heretic to be suppressed/abandoned as evil by society, but as a citizen all the same), and first and foremost that not every crime and criminal is equal to another - that's why we have lawyers after all.

The point that started this all is basically that crime in real life is nowhere near as black and white as crime in comic books, and... I'm not sure how the responsibility issue turned into that, really.

edited 1st Mar '11 5:08:24 PM by KnownUnknown

Ezekiel Since: Jan, 2001
#63: Mar 1st 2011 at 5:20:20 PM

I've been implying that you were saying criminals should be set free because until your last post, you hadn't bothered to offer any other explanation of your ideals, only to say "well if they're desperate enough they get a pass" which logically implies that you are advocating exactly that. You, meanwhile, have the whole time been inverting my meanings and creating new ones that have nothing to do with the actual text of my statements, to the extent that I when I showed another poster this discussion in its entirety, they questioned whether you had even been reading my posts at all and supported my decision to have nothing more to do with the debate. As of now, I am only even replying to set the record straight on this matter. Try getting your facts straight next time. For now, I'm just going to quit reading this topic so I don't have to say any of this again.

(Nor will I explain my previous points again. Either you did not understand them the first several times in which case I have no reason to believe that you will understand them the next time, or you are feigning ignorance of my meanings, presumably because you found my points too steadfast to argue against, in which case there is no need to explain myself.)

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#64: Mar 1st 2011 at 5:45:05 PM

I've been implying that you were saying criminals should be set free because until your last post, you hadn't bothered to offer any other explanation of your ideals, only to say "well if they're desperate enough they get a pass" which logically implies that you are advocating exactly that.

Sigh... no... it really doesn't.

You're basically saying I didn't say I wasn't, so you assumed that because I said something you associated with that belief, even though by your own admission I didn't say that or say anything about that - you assumed and thought you could be slick by cutting me down off of baseless claims. Badly. And that's just sloppy, I'm sorry.

Make sure you know what the person you're debating against is actually saying before you respond, especially when you're going to be all condescending about it. Makes you look... like you don't know what you're talking about. There's no way of sugar coating it.

edited 1st Mar '11 5:46:25 PM by KnownUnknown

Katrika Since: Jul, 2009
#65: Mar 1st 2011 at 6:03:50 PM

Make sure you know what the person you're debating against is actually saying before you respond, especially when you're going to be all condescending about it. Makes you look... like you don't know what you're talking about. There's no way of sugar coating it.

I believe one could say the same to you.

edited 1st Mar '11 6:04:20 PM by Katrika

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#66: Mar 1st 2011 at 10:13:21 PM

It's possible. In what way?

edited 1st Mar '11 10:17:01 PM by KnownUnknown

FuzzyWulfe Since: Nov, 2010
#67: Dec 24th 2012 at 1:34:43 AM

Necroposting. I saw hints of it, but I'm surprised that no one hit on it. The best correlation between superheroes and real life in regards to "With great power come great responsibility" is authority. Police officers, bosses, or any situation where your action or inaction has a major impact on others. A police officer has the authority to write you a ticket or let you off with a warning. Who would you like to see promoted to your supervisor, a fellow associate that tries to pass off his work on you because he's been there longer or the one that makes sure everything gets done while sharing the workload? Even just the authority to approve a loan or witnessing a crime.

When I went through Air Force basic training, we had an inspection team doing the annual review. One of my instructors was responsible for the physical fitness retests, and I got pulled over by the a couple of the inspectors to be asked some questions. My instructor swears I looked at him from across the track and held up my hand like "I have your world right here." I didn't realize the importance of the situation at the time, but I could have gotten points taken off for him because he realized he had messed up and hadn't shown us how to properly perform the exercises again. Though I was a lowly trainee, and he was my training instructor, I held power over his portion of the inspection. Had I known this, I could have said anything and been believed. But I had a responsibility to be honest with my responses and not try to damage my instructor's record out of spite or hatred. I ended up misunderstanding the point of the question and stated that he had shown us the exercises because he had the week before during the initial fitness test.

Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#68: Dec 24th 2012 at 11:34:29 PM

Just read the original post, and I don't think it's a Broken Aesop at all. Great responsibility DOES come with great power. If you have power, any kind of power or authority over others, along with that power/authority comes the responsibility to use that power justly. That does not, of course, mean that you or anyone else in such a situation WILL use your power responsibly. I absolutely certain that Uncle Ben/Stan Lee wasn't trying to say that power MAKES a person responsible. With great power comes great responsibility in the sense that power IS a responsibility. Webster's definition 2 rather than definition 1.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#69: Dec 25th 2012 at 9:41:24 AM

Most everyone has great power in some form of another. Power can come in a million different ways. Anything that you do well is a form of power, whether it's the ability to shoot lasers out of your eyes, or just being able to talk to people and persuade them of your ideas, or playing the guitar really, really well.

The concept of "With great power comes great responsibility" suffers for the fact that it assumes great power is something that is given to you. While sometimes true, great power is more often something that you earn for yourself through years of hard work and experience. At the same time, the idea of "great responsibility" is...well, undeveloped would be the best way to explain it. Responsibility for what? Is Uncle Ben saying that people who've developed a talent or skill are themselves obligated to use it selflessly for the betterment of mankind? Or just to refrain from using it selfishly in ways that harm others? Spider-Man seems to have taken the former meaning of it and that's...I don't know.

It just feels like it encourages entitlement and discourages effort to me. It comes off like the weak and the poor looking up to the successful and saying, "Where's mine? Why aren't you giving me my share?"

And the response is, of course, "Why should I? What have you done to deserve it? Why is it my responsibility to take care of you?" The greatest superheroes have an answer for that question in their origin story. It's Spider-Man's responsibility because he feels guilty for Uncle Ben's death. It's Iron Man's responsibility because he feels guilty for the destruction he's put into the world. It's Captain America's responsibility because he is a patriot.

None of these answers are "because he has great power". The driving force that makes a superhero great is often more than that. Even Superman's answer is, "because of how he was raised", not "because he has power".

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#70: Dec 25th 2012 at 1:32:34 PM

To add to the above, power is exponential. If you have the ability to read or learn, that's a power, especially if it can be done at a faster pace than others. For example, does an intelligent person have the "responsibility" to use his gift to go into higher education, earn a multitude of degrees, and use them for the benefit of others? If so, then the Aesop is even more ambiguous because that would mean power is also something held by the average citizen. Does Spider-man have any more responsbility to risk his entire family and personal sanity to help people than those same people have to get their facts straight before they condemn him? Does Superman have any more responsibility to save the Earth than humanity has the responsibility to stop relying on him to get them out of every jam? If you argue that every ability is "power", then everyone has it, even when they don't.

If you argue that the responsibility for superheroes is to set a good example for others, then why is it established that Spider-man didn't so much as have life insurance for his family in the event of his (very likely, considering that he's a superhero) death? If he's supposed to be setting an example, then the character needs to do it.

SpaceJawa UTINNI! from Right Here Since: Jan, 2001
UTINNI!
#71: Dec 25th 2012 at 7:49:54 PM

An alternative way of looking at it could be to remember another quote about having great amounts of power - "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely".

If you look at it from that angle, the idea of great power coming with great responsibility could instead be a statement about when someone has great power, they have a great responsibility to not misuse that power. They don't necessarily have to use it for the betterment of society as a whole by running around as a superhero and fighting crime at the expense of their own life, but at the same time they do have a great responsibility to not use that power at the expense of their fellow citizen, or to let that power go to their head, in either case letting that power corrupt them.

I think it applies better to the comic version than the movie version - in the comics, the failure to stop the crook wasn't about getting even with the manager, it was about Spidey having become a big shot and thinking that stopping the crook was beneath him. He was a hot-shot star, so why did he need to go out of his way to do something as simple as stopping a simple crook in spite of easily having the ability to do so - in other words, he let his power start to corrupt him and go to his head.

I believe it gets even more prevalent in the What if where he DOES stop the crook and turns into a selfish, jerk who can't even properly defend himself when a proper supervillain attacks him because without the death of Uncle Ben, there's nothing to deflate his ego and teach him about not letting his newfound power corrupt him.

Though it still does apply to the movie version. Even though Parker was reasonable in being angry, he still failed to be responsible by actively letting the crook get away when he easily could have stopped him. In that moment, Parker effectively had the power to decided whether the crook would get away so that he could have some revenge, or he could have taken responsibility and used that power to stop the crook instead. But by engaging in petty revenge, he let that small moment of power corrupt him rather than doing the right thing.

I also think that looking at it from that perspective makes the aesop of "great responsibility" a lot more valid. Superheroes - real superheroes rather than anti-heroes who only get away with being heroes because they're a better alternative to the people they fight - are about using their powers responsibly.

Look at Superman for example. Superman has great amounts of power, and in turn - when he's at his best at least and not engaging in superdickery - he uses a great deal of responsibility by using his powers in a way someone like Lex Luthor would never expect by not using them to take over the world in spite of how relatively easy it might be for him.

Contrast that to, say, Dr. Doom, who in spite of all his power, does not use his powers responsibly by engaging in a petty one-way rivalry with Reed Richards, running Latveria with an iron fist, and generally acting like everyone else is beneath him because he has such great power.

edited 25th Dec '12 7:55:14 PM by SpaceJawa

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#72: Dec 25th 2012 at 7:50:08 PM

I view it as people having the responsibility not to abuse power, nothing more. What they do with it beyond that is up to them. The reason it's a broken aesop is that due to the nature of the comics usually trying to teach, specifically Status Quo Is God, they can't demonstrated it in a meaningful way. That's true of fiction in general though, so hey.

Fight smart, not fair.
Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#73: Dec 25th 2012 at 9:33:30 PM

I think part of it too is the "all evil needs to triumph is for good people to turn their heads and do nothing" idea. If one sees an injustice being done or a tragedy about to happen and one has the power to/is in a position to stop said injustice, does one have the responsibility to do so? If you see someone drop their wallet, do you pick it up and give it back to them?

Stan and Uncle Ben are, I think, coming from a fairly western traditionalist judeo-christian view of what members of society's responsibilities are towards each other.

Add Post

Total posts: 73
Top