Loved the video. I remember writing an essay for my English class titled “Lex Luthor Man of Steel” where I established Lex’s position as necessary in a world where Superman exists. A super man needs someone who keeps them in check. Now I want to get into the philosophical arguments of it!
Thanks! My next book is going to be about the problem of benevolent but arbitrary power. It's basically why Superman needs someone to check him in order for everyone to be free. A more direct thought experiment called The Gentle Giant might be the subject of my next video.
@@drblunt I'd argue the qualifications to be superhuman would just mean being the 0.1% of the 0.1%, which means they exist but we're too focused on what people pay to put in our faces.
My dude, I'm a lazy, slightly chubby, increasingly middle-aged philosopher. If the system starts to crumble, I'm just going to be in my office with a bottle of Scotch yelling "I told you so!" out the window until the mutant death squads come for me.
Just a note; what if superman's base desires were to be the way he is? What if he naturally, and without much rational, wanted to do things we would view as "good".
Interesting, I think Socrates would say that these desires couldn't be base but they would be virtues. But the idea of an automated Superman would be fun. My immediate thought is about the ethics of AI, whoever programmed might implant their biases unknowingly.
Interesting, I'd like to think of justice as a product of the time it's defined, like all language, it's meaning changes constantly. Superman had grounded values that kept him balanced in a world that told him he should rule them, he chose to protect its stability instead, to allow humans as much life to make their decisions unimpeded by super beings. I feel we should all strive for that, but the problem with that thought process is that those "kansas" values are really just propaganda from mid century US, to keep us from rising above our place in the world. Makes you wonder if Superman is objectively evil for being complacent in the subjugation of the world's population, ignorant of it, or selfish for choosing a "quiet" life outside his role as Superman, I mean why would a super being like that need a secret identity, Lois Lane is a product of his life after he's made that choice. I guess the only thing philosophically holding Superman to his principles is his parents, otherwise he would probably have taken a much more direct approach sooner. I enjoyed DCAUs Of God's and Monsters movie for the fact that Superman was actually an alternate timeline version of General Zods son, and he had much different morals compared to Superman, even if he could still be considered a Hero.
I think it should be taken a different way. No matter what, a person with powers is going to use them , but even if they use them justly like superheros generally do , they are still breaking the law , they are still criminals . Batman admits this in The return of the Dark Knight. Many noble acts already go against the rule of law in many places, and this is without super powers. Take for instance someone like superman , he can literally get any terrorist or dictator, he doesn't need to ever even kill them (like people seem to want him to) , just remove them from their seats of power , this is out of the realm of what anyone could do naturally, but it doesn't mean me an average person will see them as weak , in truth I will praise the person, for doing such. Most people are not abhorrent , I think with the ring of Gygies the worst crime most people would commit is theft but after accumulation of enough wealth , theyd probably use it to have an impact on matters they think are important, because we all like to feel that we are just in a way, doing things ouside the system but with noble intentions.
Uhm... Maybe we could say, from a machiavellian point of view, that it isn't always rational to be moral. If the circumstances require so, a super-prince has to be capable of do evil things in order fo keep his state, and that wouldn't make him a slave of his passions, but a more rational person.
You are quite right than Machiavelli was dubious about morality in politics but he was also a dyed in the wool republican who felt arbitrary power was a threat to any rational person.
Loved the video. I remember writing an essay for my English class titled “Lex Luthor Man of Steel” where I established Lex’s position as necessary in a world where Superman exists. A super man needs someone who keeps them in check. Now I want to get into the philosophical arguments of it!
Thanks! My next book is going to be about the problem of benevolent but arbitrary power. It's basically why Superman needs someone to check him in order for everyone to be free. A more direct thought experiment called The Gentle Giant might be the subject of my next video.
@@drblunt will love to read it!
Let's not forget the fact that plato would put superman (philosopher-kings) in power. Actually he would make us beg to superman to rule us, haha.
Oh yeah, Plato would love King Superman. He had a lot of faith that all a just state needs is a just ruler.
Idk why this video is underrated...
Thanks! I’ll pray that the algorithm picks up your comment!
It's a great reason to study actual superpowers.
If superhumans become real, I’m moving to the arctic.
@@drblunt I'd argue the qualifications to be superhuman would just mean being the 0.1% of the 0.1%, which means they exist but we're too focused on what people pay to put in our faces.
Bro, this is a manifesto. When the system starts to crumble, this guy is gonna be out there with a tank.
My dude, I'm a lazy, slightly chubby, increasingly middle-aged philosopher. If the system starts to crumble, I'm just going to be in my office with a bottle of Scotch yelling "I told you so!" out the window until the mutant death squads come for me.
Just a note; what if superman's base desires were to be the way he is? What if he naturally, and without much rational, wanted to do things we would view as "good".
Interesting, I think Socrates would say that these desires couldn't be base but they would be virtues. But the idea of an automated Superman would be fun. My immediate thought is about the ethics of AI, whoever programmed might implant their biases unknowingly.
@@drblunti think the main problem would be a lack of nuance
I'm a Booster Gold. Let's get some high tech and travel through time for some reason...
Interesting, I'd like to think of justice as a product of the time it's defined, like all language, it's meaning changes constantly. Superman had grounded values that kept him balanced in a world that told him he should rule them, he chose to protect its stability instead, to allow humans as much life to make their decisions unimpeded by super beings.
I feel we should all strive for that, but the problem with that thought process is that those "kansas" values are really just propaganda from mid century US, to keep us from rising above our place in the world.
Makes you wonder if Superman is objectively evil for being complacent in the subjugation of the world's population, ignorant of it, or selfish for choosing a "quiet" life outside his role as Superman, I mean why would a super being like that need a secret identity, Lois Lane is a product of his life after he's made that choice. I guess the only thing philosophically holding Superman to his principles is his parents, otherwise he would probably have taken a much more direct approach sooner.
I enjoyed DCAUs Of God's and Monsters movie for the fact that Superman was actually an alternate timeline version of General Zods son, and he had much different morals compared to Superman, even if he could still be considered a Hero.
Great comment. Superman as a victim of ideology is fun take!
I think it should be taken a different way.
No matter what, a person with powers is going to use them , but even if they use them justly like superheros generally do , they are still breaking the law , they are still criminals .
Batman admits this in The return of the Dark Knight.
Many noble acts already go against the rule of law in many places, and this is without super powers.
Take for instance someone like superman , he can literally get any terrorist or dictator, he doesn't need to ever even kill them (like people seem to want him to) , just remove them from their seats of power , this is out of the realm of what anyone could do naturally, but it doesn't mean me an average person will see them as weak , in truth I will praise the person, for doing such.
Most people are not abhorrent , I think with the ring of Gygies the worst crime most people would commit is theft but after accumulation of enough wealth , theyd probably use it to have an impact on matters they think are important, because we all like to feel that we are just in a way, doing things ouside the system but with noble intentions.
Uhm... Maybe we could say, from a machiavellian point of view, that it isn't always rational to be moral. If the circumstances require so, a super-prince has to be capable of do evil things in order fo keep his state, and that wouldn't make him a slave of his passions, but a more rational person.
You are quite right than Machiavelli was dubious about morality in politics but he was also a dyed in the wool republican who felt arbitrary power was a threat to any rational person.
@@drblunt He was indeed. Btw I loved your videos, started to read about republican tradition because of them, so thanks for that discovery :)