But the amount of people killed by the murderer you kill stops. That's what Batman is missing. Stopping him, just for him to break out and start killing again isn't doing anything. If joker was gonna be rehabilitated, he would have been by now. So obviously, at this point, killing him is the best route. My argument only works for joker specifically, because joker is the only one in bmans rouges gallery who kills people just for the sake of killing them and causing mayhem. His other villains are mostly trying to just kill him.
@@ajdaking507 Joker is trying to get batman to break his code. Joker wants batman to kill him, thats why he hasnt and he never will. Batman doesnt kill otherwise he turns into the man that killed his parents.
If Frank were evil he would be more accepting of collateral damage when trying to snuff out his targets, women and children would be acceptable losses much like how many governments views drone or missile strikes. I'm gonna go off The Punisher season 2 here feel free to correct me if im wrong but when Frank thought he killed those 3 women while going after Billy it destroyed him that kind of emotional trauma doesnt happen to people who are evil.
Mr. Orangeaide I think these guys were, like 16-17 maybe... any way Frank did what he did but those were two gangs that pulled guns on each other there were ready to kill each other. Frank does not go after some teens who steal candy from a shop, no he went after teens who had guns and were ready to kill so that means they killed previously and that is probably what got them punished
@@mr.orangeaide5260 No one's here to justify anything about defending a killer... I'll let you in on a secret bro..*whisper* it's a comic book... Chill out bro it's all love ✌️✌️
Yes but the MCU ask for that or demand even xd it's so sad cause the netflix series are to good and violent soo in the mcu thats things can't be good if one day they want to join or introduce them
I prefer Arn Anderson (or whoever said it before him, if anyone)...the good guys don't always wear white hats. Or to put it like Jordan Peterson...to know how to deal with evil people, you have to know something about evil.
@@ryandonovan5895 I am a very late to this conversation but tsung zune (definitely got the wrong name he is the guy who wrote the Art of War) said "when you are hunting monsters be careful not to turn into one yourself" so there has to be a line that can't be crossed.
@@Nobodywithabeard Of course. Allow me to phrase it another way...if you don't know anything about evil, you will not know how to properly respond when you don't have a choice. That's what I meant (and what JP meant). Some people are taken aback by the concept of being a "monster" (the word JP used)...and perhaps it's shock value on JP's part...but JP's not wrong, in my opinion. In some cases, the bully can be tamed. In other instances, you need to bloody his nose (or more)...but the context defines the right answer. And the name you're looking for is Sun Tzu
@@ryandonovan5895 Thank you I wasn't disagreeing with you I actually support your statement but I just don't want to leave any stone unturned and give someone a bad idea
It's the reverse he's a bad person that does good things he actively enjoys killing people his code is just so he doesn't feel too much guilt while still being able to satisfy his bloodlust
What is good? If I go through evil means to achieve a good end does that make me good or evil A wise woman once said : “it’s not what lies underneath but what you do that defines you”
No. Psychologically disturbed, yes. Morally questionable, absolutely. But not evil. If he was evil, he'd be killing people for fun, killing innocent people and doing so of his own free will. The Punisher does not kill for fun. Though he does not flinch at the sight of bloodshed, he does not appear to take any sort of joy in it either. Now he has admitted that he kills criminals because he wants to, it has less to do with joy and more just a need for these criminals not to be alive anymore because of the harm he knows they are capable of. This is also evidenced in the fact that he doesn't kill innocent people and there have been instances where he does by accident, such as shooting an undercover cop. When this happens, Frank does show remorse because he understands that it's his fault and possible did to someone what other criminals have done to him. And lastly, Frank does not do this of his own freewill, at least not completely. As we saw in the Netflix Show, after slaying all who are responsible for the death of his family, Frank attempted to stop and just live a peaceful life. The problem was that after everything he had seen as a vigilante, it simply became impossible for him to ignore the crime and villainy that he knew invested the city and thus took up arms again as a full time vigilante. Further evidence that Frank does not do what he does for fun. He does it because he can not stand the thought of people who commit vile acts going unpunished an thus chooses to do it himself. It's not different than Batman, Spider-man or any other super hero for that matter. They cannot stop being the heroes that they are. The only difference between them is that The Punisher is willing to take it a step further and deal with criminals in utter finality. Now there will always be a debate as to whether or not Frank's methods are morally acceptable (personally I think he walks the line and occasionally goes to far) but it's hard to deny the affect he has on criminals. Criminals may be wary of Spider-man, Daredevil and the Avengers but they truly fear The Punisher.
Jaeger Newman you’re absolutely right. In season 2, when he goes home with the bartender, and they talk, you can see how much pain he’s in and will forever be in. He does have empathy, which fuels his desire to punish.
@@farklealejandro2997 ? "...acted exactly the same." I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. Spiders do not act exactly the same as hawks. Gloves are not shoes. Shirts are not pants. Dicks are not pussies. I found Dexter (the character and the show as a whole) silly and annoying. The whole premise of the show was dumb..."He's a serial killer, but he only kills bad guys!" Spare me. If you liked it, cool, but I did not like Dexter.
I see what you mean, but you can’t say with no justification because in reality, it only has to make sense to the evil person in order to do things that he believes is justifiable. But frank Castle uses evil to kill the evil so he is basically the good guy
I think youre wrong, i think he more or less does have a reaction to bad things happening or when he kills someone. When he sees innocent people being hurt he gets mad. He doesnt kill them bc he wants to. He kills them bc he feels like has to in order to save innocent lives. He doesnt care about the ones he kills families bc he figures those people are better off without people like that around them anyways. Also he doesnt just "not show emotion" he has a atrong military bearing. You learn that in boot camp. Some guys have even stronger bearing than that. My wife complained that i dont show emotion after i got home from boot camp too. Its just that we as marines are trained not to show any weakness bc the enemy will exploit it. Frank Castle is a man who takes drastic action to solve what is frankly a drastic problem. Other heroes like daredevil take less drastic action, but as seen in the comics quite often, guys the daredevil puts in jail get out so easy due to the system being screwed. Frank takes bad guys off the streets in the most effective way he can. Hes fast, effective, and efficient. He was marine recon. He doesnt play around.
just because the punisher doesn't hurt a kid but hurts an adult means hes not evil? really? anyone who takes another mans life is lawless and evil. therefore the punisher isnt "chaotically good". he is evil
@change Mymind lol wow. revenge and more violence is the answer right? if someone done that to my family, as human, first reaction is i want them judged and burned alive, castrated, obliterated etc. but we cant let our emotions drive us to the psychological state of the punisher. but we have to be better not become like the murderers. the punisher got his revenge did he not? so why is he still going around killing evil people that have nothing to do with the death of his family? did anyone ask him to avenge others too or did he just make himself judge, jury and executioner of all evildoers? is he the most righteous of mankind to go about judging evildoers with the death penalty? like i said to someone else on a different thread, if everyone took the path of hatred and revenge because people no doubt will hurt us in different forms, it will only lead to anarchy. we need more LOVE not more revenge and hatred to at least soften this evil and cruel world. there is enough evil as it is. anyways he is just a fictional character. he would have been shot at dawn by the government if he existed in the real world
@change Mymind i've had my share of horrific pain from this wicked world myself. we all have in some way but no where near frank castle's obviously. some people have actually gone through what castle experienced but we don't have anyone known as the punisher in the real world or a crazed vigilante do we? it is tragic but this is the kind of evil world we live in today unfortunately. one really bad day can drive any man like you asserted, to insanity or suicide. i'm human and in reality my default reaction is, anyone who slaughters my family must die. but it will never take away my pain in the long run because my family are still dead. if the punisher was happy after his revenge, he would have stopped his vengeful actions after he got his justice but he didn't. He carried on killing to prove a point of social justice. he has no peace in his life and he is still unhappy and alone and never letting go of his pain and that is damaging. i'm going into preaching territory here. if you are religious, God watched humans ruin this world for millennials. he sent his son to offer a solution and look how he was brutally killed. if God acted on his emotional pain, all of mankind would have been obliterated with a thought or by myriads of angelic forces. An eye for an eye, a life for a life. By default that is righteous justice from Gods standpoint but he looked at the bigger picture and chose LOVE over revenge. we too can promote this kind of SELFLESS LOVE which is LACKING IN SPADES in this WICKED world. there is TOO MUCH HATE, REVENGE, VIOLENCE AND EVIL in this world. It's like a flipping neon sign. let us reduce it not multiply it. but ignore this gibberish if u ain't religious my point is, as humans, if we allow ourselves to be guided by emotions all the time without a moment to pause and think, then we will most definitely be consumed by rage and do the unthinkable. look at warfare for instance, libya, iraq etc. families get killed in these countries, don't these families deserve justice too? are all these people killed in warfare all pure evil? Did their surviving families go around in military gear seeking justice and revenge? terrorist group today in our world spring from these warfare and they too are seeking their self proclaimed justice by unjustified killings. i hope i be the bigger person like God one day if i was in his shoes or castles, and not letting my emotions drive me to insanity and bitter revenge but show almost impossible selfless love. but the majority of humans don't think the way of love but the way of frank castle's EXTREME VIOLENCE. that is our sad reality unfortunately
@@WexMajor82 he did once. But he didn't know who he was killing back with the marines, the Arab cop. He was beyond piss off when he found out, but that doesn't changed the fact that he killed an innocent man.
If you base it on the 50 years of comic book history, he’s not vengeful. He’s a murderer who enjoys killing people not a complete psychopath. But definitely a murderer who kills because he enjoys killing
I think the one defining factor that separates Frank from the evil he hunts is that, while he exhibits the same tendencies, he has self loathing for his nature. The evil people reveal in their actions for pleasure and personal gain. Frank hates himself but he knows his actions are necessary to prevent what happened to his family from happening again. I’m an Aristotelian Ethicist by belief and that states that the intent of the person doing the action qualifies the morality of circumstance. Frank truly does believe his way is the best way he can bring justice to criminals and protect the innocent, therefore, he can’t be evil based on my moral outlook. Just my two cents.
Interesting take, but I still believe that the Punisher is evil. He may be on the side of good, but any person who can torture and kill so many times and feel so little remorse about it is fundamentally evil, regardless of whether or not they deserved it. That being said, you did make good arguments.
Stephen T Thank you for the pleasant response. I see your point, if I may offer a friendly rebuttal, some see morality as humanity’s greatest tool and I think that’s a mutually agreeable statement. Would you agree that most evil people choose to abandon said moral tool for self gain or pleasure? You can’t use the tool of morality on those who choose to so vividly abandon it. Why should one such person be offered redemption and the use of moral treatment on them? It’s the breaking of the Golden Rule. They treat others differently then they want to be treated. So, ending them is fair game, in this particular example. Although, that’s the paradoxical nature of killing in the name of goodness, I suppose. One must commit extreme evil to end extreme evil. On a practical and personal level, I believe the death penalty should be legal in only the most extreme circumstances such as multiple homicides, rapes, and acts of pedophilia. The criminally insane get one chance at rehabilitation, if they repeat, they’re caused too much irreversible damage and they should meet their end for the betterment of society. I think the Punisher embodies the most extreme version of this thought process.
MotaShotta It may seem that way, I appreciate your response. Have you read Nicomachian Ethics by Aristotle? It covers Virtues and Vices and morality is on a sliding scale. For example, courage is a virtue which is a perfect medium between rashness and cowardice. Some situations will require a little more rashness or cowardice in order to maintain that perfect moderate virtue. Ideally, in the Punisher mind (and also, in a small scale, my mind) you only punish those that consistently stick to the vices and do not attempt to become virtuous. Things like lying and murder are considered vices but nature because there is no inbetween, there’s either all dead/all untruth or no dead and all truth. So, Punisher would be immoral in the killing vice but as long as the vice is aimed at other “vicers” then it can’t be evil because Frank is trying to stop other vices from happening. Is Aristotle’s morality subjective? Potentially. But he very clearly defines moderation and virtues/vices as objective moral thoughts. Give it a read sometime, it’s not nearly as dense as Plato or Kant.
good point. my two cents on the subject is that morality is a human concept that is always changing and evolving.It change with time,by culture and circumstance. My answer to that question :is the punisher is evil ? well i think that is in a gray area he kills to protect innocents by punishing the evil and corupt people so they may never polute society again.
Well put Lenia. I would add that humans are the only species that kill for pleasure or personal gain. Even in the animal kingdom when two lions are fighting over a mate and one of them is clearly losing, that lion will actually expose his vulnerable side to the aggressor for a quick death, whereas humans will torture/inflict as much pain to their victim as possible simply for self gratification. Really enjoying the psych discussion on this board.
@@Mauifer1 depends on the intentions. Travis from taxi driver killed sport and some pimps who were pimping out a underage girl but at the same time his intentions aren’t really pure. Travis kills them because he hates people and wanted to release his pent up rage upon someone.
@Rocky Croods Not even in the slightest. As explained in this video hes Psychologically evil, however this does not make himself completely evil. If Punisher was evil characters like Spider-Man or daredevil would never work with him. Punisher is by defintion an anti hero not a villian who seeks a selfish goal.
@The Sans if the world worked on this dumb statement more Jews would have been killed in ww2, terrorist would have more control over the Middle East... knowing when and not to take life is common sense some people don’t deserve to see another day and some people deserve to be locked up, pedophiles and murders should always face death they have taking or ruined someone’s life and shouldn’t have the freedom of being able to breath If you honestly believe killing is wrong no matter the reason it makes you just as much as a threat to the world as someone that believes everyone should die
Punisher isn’t evil his actions however might appear evil to others but morally he is good and he only ever kills evil people hell Ghost Riders Penance Stare didn’t work on him because he knew what he was doing wasn’t wrong he didn’t have innocent blood on his hands only the blood of The Ghost Riders typically victims the guilty
To be fair that feat is basically a wild misunderstanding of how the Penance Stare works. Not really an example of how pure the punisher is, more like an example of writers being unfamiliar with the Ghost Rider.
J Double C Oh he's evil alright. The fact that he takes life willingly is enough to justify it. Doesn't matter if the guys he kills are bad. Murder is still murder and a psychopath like him surely doesn't get to decide what's good and what's bad.
@Leodark Sam He is outlaw but not evil. He tries to administer justice when the justice can't do it. In Greek punisher means Keeper of honor. Yes he is illegal cause the law forbid his actions but he does it because he wants to protect innocents people and punishes the people who causes pain to them. Now days nobody cares about the other people's right, punisher does. This at least is honorable.
Frank Castle is an example for all of us. If Government does not protect us, if the law can be so easily corrupted and criminals remain unpunished, if justice doesn't happen for us, then yes Frank Castle is the example for all of us.
That's a very dangerous line to cross, imo. I'm all for killing someone whose actively trying to kill you and yours, but to take it as far as Frank is a little much. All he really does is kill people who HE THINKS need to die. The only thing keeping his "moral compass" in check is himself, and I don't think he's very stable. He murders people for his own gratification; no one's paying him to do it and he doesn't have to go around killing. He does it because he wants to, plain and simple. If that's the example to follow, then why even have the law? Let's just lay down whoever we feel needs to lay down; we'll call it "Punishment", because the Law is inadequate. I don't support that logic, mind you, but I feel that's the logic he uses. The Magnum Force used the same logic in the Dirty Harry movies and Venom carries that same logic as well; they both killed A LOT of people they found guilty because they felt the system was inadequate. Eventually that list expanded as they saw other.....issues...that needed correcting. Following The Punisher's logic just incites murder and lets the real crazies indulge in their vices. Laws are made to keep those kinda things in check. It's not perfect, but until changes come around that make sense, we should probably stick with it. That's my opinion anyway, lol
The law was is and always will be corruptible there is no doubt in that we always need someone like Punisher he is so right in doing wrong to those who've wronged.
Despite all of the excuses the show makes for him, we can't realistically know that everyone he kills is guilty - we certainly can't say they're all guilty to the point of deserving a death sentence, and besides all of that Matt Murdoch is right: He leaves grieving widows and sons and daughters in his wake. They seem innocent enough, that seems malevolent enough.
futurestoryteller I know, right? I mean, Frank's actions are, by no means, justified in the eyes of the public. I personally personified my philosophy akin to Mattew Murdock. We have the capacity of violence, but we have the power to exercise how violent we can be. I agree that violence is not outright evil by definition.
Simpleton Osterson but if that is your significant other, parent, or child you probably would want to help people since the troubles your family member created. Not "Well Stalin shouldn't die horribly cuz he is my papa and took me to theme parks." Lmfao
redassassian I have pacifistic attitude. I would want to help people who are deeply affected of the act, especially the victims of both sides. I would likely put Frank on trial, and send him to a private institution, and treat him humanely as possible.
Uh...not really. Frank Castle more often than not is not sadistic towards those he kills. He puts them down quickly and efficiently, only torturing select criminals for select reasons or to get information. He does not prefer to do it in a sadistic way, he prefers to do it the quickest way possible based on the situation. Usually head shots or attacks on a person's vital organs.
3:10 I don't think he has a moral code, I think he has an ingrained sense of morality. Batman has a moral code because he has rules to follow whereas the Punisher doesn't he simply does what he feels is right. In the immortal words of The Doctor "Good men don't need rules..."
Castle has a moral code just like Batman he takes the trash out and makes sure they stay down he doesn’t go out and kill random individuals rather criminals that deserve it…
*CORRECTIONS AND THINGS* 1) I for some reason said Amazing Spider-Man 124 even though it was 129. I showed the right cover, though. Counts for something, right? 2) I know the premise of diagnosing "evil" is a bit strange, but really it's just about diagnosing a mental condition that causes people to commit acts the average person might see as evil. Not sure if I explained that properly. 3) This video was already demonetized, so HUGE thanks to our Patrons for supporting us! www.patreon.com/NerdSync 4) Punisher? I barely know her! (I'm so sorry)
I think his deep regret and remorse over killing that cop at Kandahar proves he isn't evil. He also shows similar regret when that kid screams out that he killed his father. Even his own self-reflection on whether he is a monster or not shows that some of the killing he does lives with him, and he isnt completely desensitized to it. Id love to see an arc in a future season where he accidentally kills an innocent who he thought was evil and then realises what he did.
That’s what the punisher show is about the torture video when frank was still in the military and he shot and killed the guy who was getting tortured he regretted that and wish it never happen to this day sort of speak it still bothers him he regrets killing the guy he tortured cause he don’t believe in killing innocent people so that really took a toll on him that’s why they ended killing his family cause they know that he knows it was wrong but was afraid he might slip the secrets out
James Marvel But Frank would kill other people who are like him even if they are rebellious towards corruption because he cant tell the difference, he would regret it but he would still do it because he doesn’t know whos who sometimes
even IF he is evil, he's the necessary evil. although, I wouldn't say he's really evil. he has emotions that he desperately tries to seal off, but ultimately fails. he cares a lot about Karen Page, he also showed up to help out Daredevil, and he didn't have any kind of advantage from that act. That alone counters almost all of your arguments on why Frank is evil. And like Khorne Berzerker mentioned below, you have to take into account who he kills. Those people would face a death penalty, if, of course they face a fair trial and absolutely none of the participants are bribed. So... What Frank essentially does is... cut off half the equation, that includes crooks and unfair jurisdiction system. He cuts straight to the bloody busyness and the high ranked criminal gets exactly what he supposed to get. Period.
"period" oh fuck off, its a revenge fantasy for losers. frank is complete scum, revenge is never justice and all he does is take revenge, his motivations selfish and ignorant.
I dont think that Frank Castle is Evil. The E-Syndrome dont aply like a label to him. Castle wasnt only a soldier, he was Spec Ops for MARSOC, so thats mean he have a lot of action in Afganistan and Iraq acourding the timeline, Diferently for regular forces, SpecOps are always on action and the training make a physical and psychological adaptation for combat enviroment, prepare for the worst. Basicaly he kill in that way not for enjoy it, cause he’s efficient doing it, cause the mayor damage to the enemy for a total elimination. He almost always was operating alone so he cant take de luxury to getting eliminate by a enemy he wound. PTSD ? Yeah almost everybody in our society have it without know it. So he 90% certain he’s afected worse his family was masacre in front of him and i dont know nobody who keep cool in front of that kind of looses and dont try to make justice. He doesn premeditate murders. He planed all his operations, way in and out, no civilians casualities and dont get kill by enemies hands. He like most SF soldier live by a Ethos with a moral compass He dont think on remorse with his target cause they do harm society voluntary drive by money power and control taking the wrong way morally, or in other ocations he just defend himself from getting kill like the bar Scene or the prision with kimpings imates. He try to be alone and apart from everybody cause he feels like every person close are in constant danger. He isnt Evil, he have the courage to do whats its need to do when its need. In a life or death scenario there’s no time to hesitate or doubt, first act and if you live then you judge your acts. Kill its good but sometime is necesary and thats no evil.
Eh...Syndrome E has a cool name, and trying to define it came from a good place, but I'm not sure what place it could have in psychology. It's too symptom-focused to be used in treatment and too cause-focused to be used in diagnosis, and that's not getting into the ways that this diagnosis would be misunderstood or misused.
This definition of evil can be used on almost every superhero, if you think long enough. Spiderman and captain America or iron man don't kill that often but they have no problem with violence on a daily basis. An I am sure, they have ptsd in some Form. And they all have an ideology that justifies their violence.
Superman? We've seen evil versions for sure; as absolute power corrupts absolutely. But the man of steel that we've come to know and love over the years abhors violence, resorting to it when all other measures have failed, and chooses self sacrifice over self preservation EVERY TIME.
That's why I said almost every superhero.. . The Doctor from Doctor who is another example of a "superhero" who only uses violence as the very last way out.. Sometimes even not then. My point is: would you count Spiderman as evil because that definition includes him in some way?
Honestly it seems like someone who is trying to scientifically define a morality trait within D&D. The first one is easy... between lawful and chaotic, he's definitely chaotic. But between good and evil? I think to be ACTUALLY evil you have to know what your doing is wrong. Frank doesn't do this (nor do the majority of bad people)... for this reason I would say frank is just anti-good.... which is the exact reason that he's an anti-hero. That said, he should definitely be in jail (because he's unlawful).
hmmmmm, that implies that in order to be evil or do evil you must have intent and conviction in your actions? I would argue that an individual that has PTSD would have a difficult time proving intent either way, that the disease either robbed them of the intent or that they just lacked intent due to the nature of the trauma. The problem with trying to use this is a blanket statement for super heroes is that those fictional individuals are given difficult more impact full "trolley problems" in regards to the inherent morality of right and wrong/good and evil. Whilst for use regular joes, the question might be simplified in a way that shows us what our individual foundations of values/morals are (A sort of bias or predjudice i guess). For heroes in a fictional world where the rational choice isnt always the obvious, taking the ironman example on board you can tick off certain things that would definitely make him a sociopath (or full blown psychopath) in our world, but those things also define him as a hero in a way (the difference between him and a civilian is that he has to make tough decisions where the outcome isn't always positive where the civilian can choose not to act and as such have no accountability, if ironman chooses not to act then he is going against his own morals and ideology making him the same as a criminal by intent. I guess it's a question of can an individual be pure good or pure evil or do we need to redefine our own subjective ideals on what that even means? You can argue that evil people (im generalizing here) can make decisions and act in such a way that the outcome is beneficial for others (can you be evil and selfless or are those inherently opposite ideals?) Does the action of being selfish make you evil? This is an interesting thought, thanks for sharing fam! :)
@@Mauifer1 I know that which is why I said *typical lame excuse a sanctimonious fool* because sanctimonious people always use that excuse to justify not killing a villain.
@@Mauifer1 Its not a generation thing, its a life style thing, the only people who think that way are happy little snowflakes and rich brats born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
I don't think or perceive Frank as evil, by definition. In the same way I don't see violence as purely evil, but as a consequence of an action. Now one could argue that with the right mindset, one could trigger violence anywhere, and that would be evil, then, Punisher (Frank's response to the violence he went through) is a product of evil, just like violence is a consequence of it. Now Frank's embrace of his Punisher persona is him accepting his violent tendencies, i see him as violent, but not evil, which I think might be his own way of perceiving himself. He sees himself as a broken shell, the normal and kind man (with hidden violent tendencies) inside has died, because of evil, and the violence - the product/consequence - is, ironically, Frank's way of fighting back against the very evil that killed his family (and his former mentality). He is imprisoned by evil, but not necessarily corrupted by it. (Sorry if this is confusing, english is not my first language)
Lucas Machado so like doomslayer ( he gave up his world to have his son back, but, the demons brought him back as the icon of sin. Needless to say that opened the demon's version of pandora's box for the next few eons till they sealed him)
But Doomslayer also has something different going for him. he fights actual demons, the picture people have when they think about "evil" not only that the Slayer was also powered by a powerful angel, because of his "incorruptible" soul. Punisher on the other hand kills off criminals left and right and while they do horrific acts themselves, they still can be good family men.
Dang! The quality of your videos has been BETTER! in the army we love the Punisher logo and when we can with civilian clothing or items that can apply via patch. We always wear It! So this video was AWESOMETACULLAR to watch!
The "psychology" presented here is a joke. Most of those points that you say match Frank Castle (and, thus, show him to be evil) could be applied to most soldiers. And how about some of those symptoms that you skipped? One says, "obedience to authority and dependency on group support..." So being a rebel and a loner is somehow indicative of NOT being evil? Another symptom in that list was "perseveration". So any athlete that continues to push themselves after the effort is deemed by most to be pointless, often even to the detriment of their own health, is showing signs of being evil? I don't think I'd listen to this Itzhak guy on anything.
0 0, you missed the point. I know Frank was a *marine (not a soldier), so he is going to be like most soldiers. The point is the fact that Itzhak's little 'guide to evil' can be applied to Frank's characteristics in ways that line up with most military people in real life means you can use this bogus psychology to call all of those real life military people evil. It's been over a month since I watched this video, so I don't remember all of it that was mentioned (and I don't feel like watching it again), but I remember one of the 'symptoms of evil' being something along the lines of desensitized to violence. That is something that can apply to almost every person in the world. Almost anyone that is around violence gets desensitized to it. That is why I'm saying Itzhak is full of crap.
Wolverine has the best stance on this. He kills only when someone threatens his life. (Atleast in the comics I've read) Completely different from someone who breaks in with assault rifles and decides who lives or dies. It's unfair to assume everyone he targets deseres a brutal death because they are a part of a criminal organization. Everyone deserves a trial. You can complain about whatever justice system we have but mentally disturbed vigilantes with severe PTSD isn't much better. Not only does he risk targeting innocent people but he puts civilian lives in danger. He stormed into a hospital in Daredevil. A more realistic portrayal of this kind of thing is the ending of Taxi Driver
A rabid dog gets put down every time. Not always because it has harmed someone, but simply because it has proven to be rabid. For the extremely high probability it WILL in time hurt someone because it is rabid. The Punisher follows the same path. He puts down those who have proven to be criminally rabid through action or complacency. Those who have criminally hurt others, and with extremely high probability will again, and again. He acknowledges that you can not train or rehabilitate a rabid animal regardless of the species.
This is a great essay, Frank as he has stated he enjoyed being covered in blood and being with his marines often more then he enjoyed being home with his family. I served in the marine corps as a rifleman and I can testify that there are absolutely nutcases who join because they want to kill people and not go to prison for it. He isn’t evil in a traditional sense because of which side of the line he fights on. But he does enjoy killing people. Even before his trauma. I believe that in the MCU he is more of an embodiment of the grim reaper among the heroes. If the heroes were the Greek pantheon he would be hades. The necessary force or evil dealt onto those who kill.
But real talk though, on the subject of quantifying objectively what evil can manifest as, I really do think you've made a compelling case. The fact that people actually rally behind the emblem of the skull, even trained soldiers, is disturbing in this context. I understand you don't like being political, but I really wish people would consider what a symbol means before they adopt it. Who knows, in a couple of decades, the ISIS war banner will become a printed T-shirt, alongside Che Guevara.
Interestingly, when asked how he felt about soldiers using the Punisher emblem Jon Bernthal somewhat obliviously stated that he was proud those soldiers identified with the veteran's experience they'd depicted on the show, as though the soldiers had not adopted it before they'd seen the show, as though the comics have always had that thematic resonance, and/or as though they hadn't possibly adopted it before they'd ever seen combat etc. Despite being a gun owner IRL, he says he believes in restrictions, and was a little less gracious to the Alt-Righters who'd adopted the symbol, saying simply "fuck them."
Sprinkles Sundae People like the skull because it's archetypical. It stands for something inevitable and unavoidable. You and I will face our deaths one day. It's really almost shakespearean so I think people embrace the symbol of death to exult in life, not to accept Frank's murder spree.
I think that's a fair point to make. It's definitely intimidating as well, which is useful for a cause aimed at stomping out injustice and terror in the world. I'm just offput by how easily such things can be misused to bring others to support something that shouldn't be supported. _Group Contagion_ , as Scott taught us.
I absolutely hate the idea of calling evil a disease. If it’s a medical condition, then how are you able to incriminate someone who is evil? You can’t blame someone for something they can’t control.
NerdSync This is actually a really awesome video, id say do more of these but if you're going to do one on someone like Rorshac say goodbye to monetization
In many ways, he is a textbook clinical psychotic; disconnected and unable to relate/empathize with others-- or himself. His skull is empty: the only things left in his head, the only reasons he's not a catatonic sitting in a chair and drooling, are two principles. 1. The innocent must be avenged. 2. the guilty must be punished. The fact that these two are in a specific order is the only reason he is not an outright villain. He won't allow an innocent to come to harm for the sake of punishing the guilty. Hell, he doesn't even kill every criminal he finds-- only the ones that directly (or indirectly) cause death to the innocent. He even spared the Rhino "I punish the guilty, not the stupid". His killing isn't about vengeance; it's just an obsession, practically a day job. He does not like killing. He does not enjoy it, or feel any emotion over it (His tussle with eh Ghost Rider proved that). He has the Hannibal Lecter thing going on; he doesn't feel any excitement when he kills, or even when he gets hurt. He's practically a robot. He's neither good or evil in it's own right. And neither is really quantifiable anyway. He's a particularly nasty gray area. That's what makes the character interesting. Personally, I am NOT a fan. But there is some depth to this character.
I'm going to disagree with you that the Punisher doesn't feel any emotion when he kills. I think it's pretty obvious that he feels a thrill when he kills. Probably less of a happiness and more of a wildness.
If you're talking about Ghost Rider putting the Punisher in the penance stare and had no effect on him, it doesn't necessarily mean he's emotionless, it meant he felt no regret or guilt of the people he killed. I don't believe Frank lacks any emotion. In the show he's seen as always angry and when he's with Karen you can see that he's happy just talking to her or even Micro or his family. Frank isn't a robot, he's just a well motivated man with incredible will power to take down his enemies which he views as true evil. I believe what you're saying is that he lacks empathy for those that he kills, which I thoroughly agree with.
Frank is considered a vigilante in my book. He has killed the people who needed killing, but also has done some questionable acts, but then again people don’t always know the full story.
Scott, the production values of your newest videos has been fantastic. I stay subbed because I love the analysis, deep research, and adherence to great video editing. Keep it up!
I think that before we can psychologically diagnose evil, we need to philosophically define evil. Of course, we could make it easy and think of "evil" as the same thing as Syndrome E, but I think that's ignoring the bigger question. What is thought of as "evil" varies greatly depending on who you're talking to. Is it evil to refuse to help a stranger in need? One person might think evil is a lack of compassion; inaction in this case is an evil act. Another might think it is only evil to actively hurt someone; inaction in this case is morally neutral. While we're talking about moral philosophy, I should also mention deontology (the idea that morality is based on rules) and utilitarianism (the idea that what is good is what brings the best result for the largest number of people). A deontologist would say that killing is wrong, therefore Frank Castle is evil. A utilitarian would say that by killing evil people, Frank prevents them from hurting many more people, therefore Frank Castle is good. While writing this, I've realized that I've mainly focused on the morality of actions rather than psychology. And that is also a good question: Is good and evil about actions or psychology? If evil is about psychology, then perhaps it can be diagnosed (though we would still have to define what evil is. Is it the same thing as Syndrome E? Or perhaps something related to the Dark Triad traits (narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy)? If evil is about actions, then obviously it can't be diagnosed. It could perhaps be psychologically predicted how likely someone is to perform evil acts, but you can't psychologically diagnose something that isn't psychological.
I understand that you are attempting to re-contextualize the conversation, and in that way you are arguably playing devil's advocate in cases that may not necessarily be your opinion especially where alternatives are presented, however I would like to argue some of the points regardless of your opinions on them. "Is it evil to refuse to help a stranger in need? One person might think evil is a lack of compassion; inaction in this case is an evil act. Another might think it is only evil to actively hurt someone; inaction in this case is morally neutral." If you don't help someone but can _afford to_ you have made an active decision not to help them, it is a yes or no proposition after all. "Help or don't help?" You've _decided_ not to, knowing that the result will likely be harm to the other person, and that is not morally neutral. Moral grey arises when being unsure of whether or not you can afford to help them gets in the way of making the decision to do so. "A utilitarian would say that by killing evil people, Frank prevents them from hurting many more people, therefore Frank Castle is good." But as you've said we have not defined evil, so to brand Castle good because he defeats evil as a way of discovering whether or not he is evil is a non-starter However empirical evidence does not indicate that actions like Frank's prevent crimes from occurring, since revenge killings are most often perpetrated against innocent people. Due to misidentification and so forth. Plus the rising death toll, and antagonism could be seen as contributing to an escalation or inflammation of crime, encouraging more desperate, aggressive and damaging tactics to be carried out in response. After all working tentatively for a drug lord might allow some wiggle room for a person who is willing to speak to prosecutors, but under Frank's ideology it's an instant death sentence. Which also means in the event that the ruling criminal has a particular skill for evading Castle exclusively Frank virtually ensures they *won't* be punished. You can see some of this escalation in the response to Frank and Micro's actions in the kidnapping of Micro's family, both of whom Agent Orange seemed pretty keen on torturing to get to Castle. An event that would not have occurred if Castle had not come after them. "Is good and evil about actions or psychology?" I would have to say it's about social psychology and/or biological devastation. Knowing what impact ones life has on the lives of others, what affects it has on the system as a whole.
futurestoryteller, you've actually made Karl-Kristoffer Johnsson's point for him. You put forth your opinions on the matter, but the point is that they are debatable. Not everyone is going to agree with what you stated. For instance, I would say that you can just not answer at all (never decide to help, but never decide to not help), and you will be passively letting something happen, not actively deciding anything. Also, you are missing the point of utilitarianism. The utilitarian looks at the overall result. If the Punisher kills 10 mass murderers and 20 small time criminals (and maybe even kills a few innocent people unintentionally), but saves 100 people from those mass murderers, then the Punisher did good. Obviously, if something could be done where only the 10 mass murderers died and everyone else was saved, that would be better, but, according to the utilitarian viewpoint, bad things (like the deaths of a few innocents) are acceptable when it comes to the greater good, and losing those few is preferable to the Punisher not killing anyone and 100 other innocent people die.
"For instance, I would say that you can just not answer at all (never decide to help, but never decide to not help), and you will be passively letting something happen, not actively deciding anything." My point is that this _actually_ does noes not conform to logic. By not answering you are refusing to help. The only way to be neutral would be to not know that anything is going on. "Also, you are missing the point of utilitarianism. The utilitarian looks at the overall result. If the Punisher kills 10 mass murderers and 20 small time criminals (and maybe even kills a few innocent people unintentionally), but saves 100 people from those mass murderers, then the Punisher did good. " Those are generous numbers for a fantastical hypothetical. "according to the utilitarian viewpoint, bad things (like the deaths of a few innocents) are acceptable when it comes to the greater good, and losing those few is preferable to the Punisher not killing anyone and 100 other innocent people die." Then it would not be controversial to admit that a utilitarian would not be averse to innocent people dying.
First, indecisiveness does not equal refusal to answer. If someone pulls a gun on a person standing next to you and, in the second between them aiming the gun and pulling the trigger, you don't shove the person out of the way of the gun's aim, you would not be at fault for refusing to help (from my point of view). Your inaction meant that person died, but your inaction wasn't the cause of that person's death. The shooter was the cause of that person's death. Second, generous numbers? We are talking about a comic book character! The Punisher goes up against mass murderers on a regular basis, and 100 would probably be low balling how many people could be killed by even one of those villains, let alone ten. Third, ethics and morals really aren't as cut and dry as everyone thinks they are at first glance. A utilitarian would likely be just as averse to innocents dying as most anyone else, which is why they would prefer three or four of them dying as opposed to hundreds of them dying. There is a very popular thought experiment called the "trolley problem". Basically, you are standing next to a switch for the rails of a trolley (in such a way that you can't reach the tracks, only the switch). Five people are tied to one track and one person is tied to the other track and a trolley is barreling towards the five people. Your choice is to actively throw the switch, causing the trolley to switch tracks, and kill a person, or to passively watch five people die. The utilitarian will say it is better to throw the switch and save the five over the one. Meanwhile, others would say it is better to be a passive observer and to let five people die than to actively kill someone to save the rest. The point is, there is no right answer. Whichever one you choose, somebody will think you're wrong for doing it that way.
True, one cannot diagnose behavior that is not a psychiatric disorder. "Insane" is a legal term meaning "not knowing right from wrong," while "psychotic"is a psychology term that means "has hallucinations and delusions." Good and evil are about both psychology and actions, since the former studies behavior. Psychology defines evil as the Dark Triad, Antisocial Personality Disorder, pyromania, etc. Both neglect and violence are evil, since they harm others. As for philosophy, the Punisher franchise is clearly utilitarian, while most other superheroes are deontologists.
Terrorist or not, he doesn't hurt the innocent. Just like Superman, Batman, Spider Man, Daredevil and every other hero or vigilante in the DC and Marvel multiverses, he thinks he s above the law, and acts accordingly by hurting those he considers to be "evil". Frank Castle and Bruce Wayne are not that different. One just kills "the bad guys" and the other leaves them on a wheelchair for life. To be honest, as much as I love Batman and his moral code, I am sure as hell that many of the people he leaves paralyzed for life, would have prefered a swift death.
@@dogestranding5047 wasn't talkin about the main villains. There would no longer be a Batman if he paralyzed all his badass super-villains. I was talking about the COUNTLESS normal criminals he has kicked the crap out of, causing irreparable damage to them.
Broken bones, cut fleshes, bloody faces they all heal, and accidentally killing or gravely injuring scumbags in order to save innocenct lives or his own life does not announce Batman that he breaks his own moral code. Because simply put, the scumbags get themselves killed/injured by their own stupidity. When you charge with a knife or a gun at an extremely efficient combatant or a dangerous vigilante with no weaknesses you are bound to get yourself hurt especially if you are a bad guy. It is not Batman's fault that in some part of the combat he punched at your throat and broke your voice box, when his intention was to knock you out. Remember he could have sinply gutted you like fish but he did not.
Reminds me of when Ghost Rider tried to penance stare Castle. It did nothing. But Castle wasn't always the Punisher. It suggests that he's never felt regret for any wrongdoing he's committed in his entire life. From the very first person he killed back in Vietnam, if that was even his first kill, he didn't feel a shred of internal turmoil.
Frank Castle can't be evil, in the netflix show, he thinks he killed 3 innocent girls when he didn't, and he was ready to turn himself in, or even die, showing that he shows remorse and thinks he killed people who didn't deserve to die.
I'm not sure if their is a psychological term for it but I think Castle is seeking his own death. Yes he wears body armor, because he intends to kill those he sees as deserving it, and he wants to take as many "bad guys" with him as possible. I also got the impression from many of the better written comics and the Netflix series part of him wants yo keep fighting and an other wants to die, but on his terms to go down fighting. This is also common in military and law enforcement personnel suffering from PTSD and might havee something to do with their personality that lead to them taking those career paths and from before they had PTSD.
I think everyone is forgetting that frank didn’t become the punisher because his family died, that was just his excuse. Frank was about to leave his wife and kids because he wanted to kill people with nick fury. Like the last thing he said to his wife was I’m leaving you. He only kills criminals because that’s the only way he can justify it in his head. If he ran out of criminals he’d turn to cops and then he turn to everyday people
I once heard "It is impossible to define evil because when you, think you have it all labeled & sorted into categories, A new type of evil emerges that then totally throws the worse acts into pale comparisons "
Absolutely and without question. Given the effect he has on society he may even be _objectively_ evil. Much like Batman - particularly Christopher Nolan's version, his claims of skill and tactful blame are questionable. Like when it is implied that his firing at Karen in a crowded hospital is "okay" because he's such a good shot, even though he is - among other things - using a *sawed-off* shotgun; a weapon known for its spread and not exactly renowned for its accuracy for that very same reason. He fires right over the head of a doctor who steps in his way, and doesn't flinch. He similarly does not have the time to background check every mook he comes across, and it's entirely possible that some of them (if not arguably most of them) are just poor people suffering under a bad situation, being taken advantage of - much like Castle was in his war service. His assumption that if they get in his way, or work for people who are worse, then they must deserve it, is exacerbated by the fact that his career in the military, which he looks on... fondly(?) involved doing just that, on behalf of Agent Orange. Up to and including committing murders for him. Additionally, how does strict adherence to that philosophy *not* put Karen's life in danger? Inarguably she *was* protecting the "scumbag" he was after. Even if he knew who she was, that's how he feels about her law practice anyway. How would we know (as the hypothetical Marvel society) that his claims about not trying to hurt her weren't excuses made after the fact? Also how does that ever justify firing a gun in a hospital. Are there not enough innocent people around to condemn that behavior? He _doesn't_ have superpowers, right? Can he see through walls? Even his own show doesn't seem to shy away from this moral judgment entirely, while certain political statements made toward its mid-point are - I think - toxic and idiotic, particularly for a show that *cannot* tackle these themes with complete honesty, (owing to their brand) it's worth mentioning that it's difficult not to be uncomfortable in the bloodbaths that permeate the finale of the show, and it's even more difficult to imagine that this discomfort is incidental or exclusive to me. Central to this point are flashes of Castle in bed with his wife, encompassed by an empty void, in what I - at first blush - regarded as _only_ an uncomfortably tacky and sentimental visual cliche. However, we soon discover that this interspersion is a kind of lead-in to what can only be described as a near death experience for Castle. Drifting in and out of consciousness... or death, seeing his wife. Throughout the show (and Season 2 of Daredevil) is an indication and outright acclamation (by Frank himself, no less) that Frank Castle has two homes. One is a life of domestication, and family and love. The other of war and conflict and even hatred. The question this raises in Castle, and others like Micro is "Okay... So which one is it?" Showrunner Steven Lightfoot is adamant that this is a real experiential problem for soldiers suffering from PTSD, which he attempts to show in more brutal honesty with the character of Lewis; a soldier who doesn't understand his place in civilized society anymore, and just feels emotionally compelled to find another war to fight, clinging to any and all reasons to do so, no matter how tenuous or delusional they may be. A mirror to Castle's ostensibly pragmatic approach (or excuse) to doing the same thing. In Frank's darkest moment, in the midst of his torture, right before Agent Orange is killed, Frank sees his wife again who asks him to come "home." Doing so would force Frank to let go of his hatred, and while he knows that it will mean dying - abandoning his mission - Agent Orange will be arrested, and Frank will finally be with his family. Frank replies "I am home" before stabbing a man's eyes out of his head with the tips of his thumbs. As he lays down, to give in to death, and finally be reunited with his wife, he returns to the void to find.. no one is waiting for him. Visual metaphor, post traumatic hallucination, or spiritual experience: the message is clear, Frank chose his love of destruction and bloodshed over his love for his family, and because of that family will not be waiting for him in the end. He's sold his soul in a sense. Personally I don't think it's controversial to say that a man who prioritizes rage-killing people - whatever his reasons - over his family can _only_ be seen as some kind of evil. Assuming the word "evil" is going to mean anything to you.
I think everyone is forgetting something about Frank, he thinks he is killing only people who deserve it. But do they? In season 2 of dd we see him gun down members of 3 gangs. We know they shot his wife and kids but not everyone in the gang shot at his wife and kids. Some members are there selling drugs or weapons. Some are body guards. And while they can ve violent i bet not even half of the people he killed had killed another person. Mugging is bad. Selling drugs...bad...murder bad but they arent all on the same level. Corner guy selling illegal weed isn't the same as the guy collecting "protection " money or the guy that gets involved in a shootout. The people in the gangs whether they are bad people or just disenfranchised lower class playing the hand they sre dealt in life are now all guilty of murder by association
Well there was an episode of the punisher on Netflix where he stated that he will even kill people who has nothing to do with it have no idea but still working for the criminals that’s why he shot a soldier in the show
This is why the punisher is a better hero than Batman! The Punisher isn't looking to do good intentionally he's on a mission to kill rapists and murderers until he dies. It's both beautiful and sad because the punisher's entire existence is to fight until he dies. He'll never stop and think how many lives would have been saved if Punisher crushed Joker to death in the back of a garbage truck. If Punisher sliced open Riddler's intestines out! If Punisher blasted off Harley's Quinn's head! If the punisher scorched the entire Court of Owls with napalm and flamethrowers! How many lives would have been saved! All those people Batman murdered by letting the joker live! I think the Punisher would be sympathetic towards Mr. Freeze and Killer Croc. And he would team up with Red Hood because the punisher is not a cold hearted killer. He's not vengeance. He's punishment and he only kills those who truly deserve to die. The Punisher has literally nothing to lose. His entire family was gunned down by the Mafia. The Punisher is the hero Gotham deserves! Batman's no killing rule has increased crime in Gotham by 200%. The Punisher would decrease crime by 90%!
Personally I think there's something in him that tie’s him to constantly do these things. I think it's because he didn't have the chance to save his family from bad people so he's making sure no one else has to suffer
As much as I love the punisher ( he's my favorite anti hero). I love just a bit more comic book heros who do kill but just not all the time. I mean judge dredd, hellboy, and lady mechanika just like Frank they all have their codes of honor that they strictly follow. Like they kill but only to protect others, if absolutely necessary, and never something minor ( like killing murderous aliens ie dredd). It's just a reason why I love the punisher he has his code of honor he sticks to
I see a lot of people misinterpret The Punisher's character, that he's a good guy who rights wrongs. He says he does what he does for justice, but in the comics, it's explored how Frank had his bloodlust way before his family died. He always had violent urges, which he's suppressed thanks to his family. But when his family isn't there to keep him grounded in reality, he's his true psychopathic self. Sure, sometimes he genuinely helps people, but that's not why he kills people. He does it to satisfy his own bloodlust, while justifying it as a moral crusade, to distance himself from the acts he commits. He goes out of his way to hunt down other human beings, even if they are scumbags. What he does is undeniably wrong and evil. Defending his actions is rather disturbing to see.
I wouldn't say he is evil, yes his methods and actions are considered evil, but more or less every man Frank has killed were evil and deserved it in one way shape or form, he's doing what the justice system fails to do, he also doesn't seem to take joy or have a sadistic pleasure out of killing his victims (expect from the odd occasion) also as said he has a moral code that he doesn't cross, someone truly evil would be the opposite. I do think that some people can rehabilitate themselves and deserve a second chance but the lives of paedophiles, child traffickers etc. To be honest are better off dead, that's why I agree with a lot of Frank's ways but redemption can happen for some as there's good in nearly everyone. He's definitely a screw loose but in general i wouldn't say his evil. Good video though.
@@stevenking3966 by killing the evil guys ..... a lot more than 0 i wish a vigilante would come about my country politicians rob dozens of millions from the people then admit it and brag about it on the phone..only after years the recordings by our version of the NSA are revealed gangsters and undercover mafia do whatever they want ... having them all dead would be so good jailing them is impossible they are all friends and they are the ones with the power to jail thanks to open bribery ..because guess what...they are also the ones that check for bribery and such acts my whole country knows the politicians are corrupt to the bones ...yet we can't do anything or we'd face jail till death
When one has witnessed enough of human behavior, it becomes clear that the paradigm of good/evil is a null program. Harmonious/disharmonious at least have the advantage of not needing to resort to metaphysics in order to appreciate.
I've always felt that the Punisher was the most tragically sad character. We the reader watch helpless as a good man voluntarily forfeits his soul to cleanse the world of villainy.
Enjoyed the analysis. Problem is I disagree with the source as you described it. To me evil is enjoying or being compelled to do bad things to people. So with that you can qualify The Punisher as evil. But many of the criterium on the paper you sited aren't evil or, in my opinion, not a requirement to be evil, but they do exacerbate its consequences. For example Hitler, and Charles Manson are widely accepted as evil and the could rally followers but Ted Bundy, and Ed Gein, who are also widely considered evil had no such followers. Seems like the Doctor is categorizing charisma as evil. Also hyper-arousal aka hyper-vigilance, which many associated with paranoia does not make a person evil nor are all evil people hyper-aroused. Most evil people are caught early because of their lack of alertness and as a result never make it into infamy. Many very nice and virtuous people are hyper-aroused or paranoid due to many reasons. I think the author may have put the cart before the horse with this one. Hitler, and Stalin for example were notoriously paranoid toward the end of their lives as a result of the evil they had perpetrated versus being evil because of it. Perhaps I'm wrong and you simplified the points for the purpose of brevity and ended up not doing a great job of illustrating the paper's ideas. Or you had the same definition of evil as I did but that wouldn't make for a very long video, and that was the only document you could find with any lengthy analysis but just happened to be trash. Either way I enjoyed it and that's the real point.
Frank looks in your eyes . You remember the boy in the 7th grade where you stole his juice from his backpack. The last thing you see is his Glock on your forehead.
Fact: Frank actually ended up defending Matt Murdock as a kid from bullies during their childhood. (They referred to him as Big Frank Castle) So I guess he always had that darkness in him.
Got it’s so sad and scary to see how people completely missed the point of punisher and just idolize him as cool edgy murderer Frank Castle kills people because he likes killing people. He’s not a complete psychopath. He has empathy. He is able to understand what he is doing is fundamentally wrong (everyone goes straight to the serial killers and cannibals and pedophiles and ignore the fact that Frank has killed just as many pot dealers kids caught up in gangs and drug addicts, committing petty crimes) he’s only ever been comfortable in a war zone when his family was killed, it gave him an extremely convenient excuse to do the thing that he wants to do and the thing that he’s the best at His only reason not to fight a war was gone and the people that took them just so happened to be an infinite faceless army that will always fight back Frank is not an aspirational figure. Frank is not a hero. The punisher is a hypocritical, vindictive, cruel murder. I absolutely love his character
I'm gonna be honest, I really don't know the answer to this one. In terms of hurting or killing innocent people, Frank Castle is definitely not evil in that regard. But the thing about evil is that it's a path, where actions are repeated to the point that you become what you do. But like I said, it's hard for me to say for sure, because I don't know.
Being a medical student I strongly believe that a person's mind adapts to a particular environment provided and can suit itself in that condition if the person is in that environment for a longer period. For eg:- if your group have nerdy people then it is highly possible that one day you might also be a nerd if you stay with them for a long time. Now when the same person who has become a nerd is shifted to a group of people who are more into sports and are gym freaks. Considering the environment in which he is surrounded gradually his mind starts to accepts the information which it gets that is about sports and gym and slowly that person can be converted from a nerd to gym freak. I think same thing happened with frank as earlier looking at his condition that is his family got killed, his best friend betrayed him, he was still in state of war zone he became rogue but gradually he got surrounded by good people like Karen page, his condition starts to improve as now he knows every person does not need killing and fast forward in season 2 he is better man as he does not kill that Russian gang boss and also john pilgrim even if they are criminals when compared to season 1 and in daredevil where used to kill each and every one even if that person had family because at that time he didn't care.
"If you murder a murderer, the amount of killers in the world remains the same." ~Batman
"Unless you kill all of them." ~Punisher
But the amount of people killed by the murderer you kill stops. That's what Batman is missing. Stopping him, just for him to break out and start killing again isn't doing anything. If joker was gonna be rehabilitated, he would have been by now. So obviously, at this point, killing him is the best route. My argument only works for joker specifically, because joker is the only one in bmans rouges gallery who kills people just for the sake of killing them and causing mayhem. His other villains are mostly trying to just kill him.
@@ajdaking507 Joker is trying to get batman to break his code. Joker wants batman to kill him, thats why he hasnt and he never will. Batman doesnt kill otherwise he turns into the man that killed his parents.
Only the first time.
when one guy kills all of them then the number of the murderers get reduced to one.
@@thealf3393 he should kill him then , if he is a hero then he will sacrifice his ideology and innocence for the sake of the civilians
I think the definition of evil would be if Netflix cancelled this series.
Well guess what
Feels bad man
Oh wait,...
Sad boi
Punisher show is a disgrace
What right is, is not always legal.
What legal is, isn't always right
🔥
Good point.
Great point
True that
Indeed.
*Shows footage of a man's face being dragged across a shattered mirror.
Bleeps out the s-word.
Sci-Fi Pie blood and torture okay, curse words bad. The Murican censorship system in a nutshell
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
92brunod just don't even THINK about showing a tiddy!!!
Thats the beauty of america ,blood and torture is Ok,sex and curse words is bad,im like ....wtf ...😶😐😐😑😑😑
Sci-Fi Pie NO SWEARING IN MY CHRISTIAN MINECRAFT SERVER
Evil? How can a man who became an angel be evil? I'd trust my kids with that man. Could've sworn I had 3, but lil' Timmy was always a troublemaker.
At least the other two learned a valuable lesson.
Just Some Guy with a Mustache punisher blew the other marvel show out of the water
I'm sorry that you have kids. They deserve a better parent than you.
Just Some Guy with a Mustache
L
Not just Marvel but all superhero shows
If Frank were evil he would be more accepting of collateral damage when trying to snuff out his targets, women and children would be acceptable losses much like how many governments views drone or missile strikes. I'm gonna go off The Punisher season 2 here feel free to correct me if im wrong but when Frank thought he killed those 3 women while going after Billy it destroyed him that kind of emotional trauma doesnt happen to people who are evil.
that season ended with him gunning down 14 year olds
Mr. Orangeaide I think these guys were, like 16-17 maybe... any way Frank did what he did but those were two gangs that pulled guns on each other there were ready to kill each other. Frank does not go after some teens who steal candy from a shop, no he went after teens who had guns and were ready to kill so that means they killed previously and that is probably what got them punished
@@Isariah yeah sure whatever justification you and him need. stop trying to justify the actions of a character that was originally a villain
@Tyler Porciello Pretty sure that was season 3.
Semper Fi!
@@mr.orangeaide5260 No one's here to justify anything about defending a killer... I'll let you in on a secret bro..*whisper* it's a comic book... Chill out bro it's all love ✌️✌️
The Punisher isn’t evil. But Netflix is, for canceling his series.
Yes but the MCU ask for that or demand even xd it's so sad cause the netflix series are to good and violent soo in the mcu thats things can't be good if one day they want to join or introduce them
His evil he enjoys killing
@@isinganddootherthings4616 If i was in his shoes, I would probably enjoy it too
Have you even read the comics?Netflix series isn't accurate of my psychology,or body,or attitude
Netflix did not have the choice. Blame Disney.
“You don’t use a saint to catch a sinner”
I prefer Arn Anderson (or whoever said it before him, if anyone)...the good guys don't always wear white hats. Or to put it like Jordan Peterson...to know how to deal with evil people, you have to know something about evil.
@@ryandonovan5895 I am a very late to this conversation but tsung zune (definitely got the wrong name he is the guy who wrote the Art of War) said "when you are hunting monsters be careful not to turn into one yourself" so there has to be a line that can't be crossed.
@@Nobodywithabeard Of course. Allow me to phrase it another way...if you don't know anything about evil, you will not know how to properly respond when you don't have a choice. That's what I meant (and what JP meant). Some people are taken aback by the concept of being a "monster" (the word JP used)...and perhaps it's shock value on JP's part...but JP's not wrong, in my opinion. In some cases, the bully can be tamed. In other instances, you need to bloody his nose (or more)...but the context defines the right answer. And the name you're looking for is Sun Tzu
@@ryandonovan5895 Thank you I wasn't disagreeing with you I actually support your statement but I just don't want to leave any stone unturned and give someone a bad idea
💯
"Sometimes good people do bad things"
Rdr2
Nothing else better describes the punisher.
And 4 some of us good people those bad things happen all the time 🤦🏽♂️⏰⏳💣
Some bad people do good things
It's the reverse he's a bad person that does good things he actively enjoys killing people his code is just so he doesn't feel too much guilt while still being able to satisfy his bloodlust
Not even Castle himself thinks that he's good.
Andrew Pliakis lol he ain’t got any thought except his family n just killing, killing, killing
@@adi14293 you think I care about my family?They're just an excuse.Plus it was 40+ years ago when they died
In order to kill a monster, you gotta think like one, act like one, and worst case scenario, you gotta become an even greater monster
What is good?
If I go through evil means to achieve a good end does that make me good or evil
A wise woman once said : “it’s not what lies underneath but what you do that defines you”
@@alphatrusbensiii8381 he is not a Good Guy.
No. Psychologically disturbed, yes. Morally questionable, absolutely. But not evil. If he was evil, he'd be killing people for fun, killing innocent people and doing so of his own free will. The Punisher does not kill for fun. Though he does not flinch at the sight of bloodshed, he does not appear to take any sort of joy in it either. Now he has admitted that he kills criminals because he wants to, it has less to do with joy and more just a need for these criminals not to be alive anymore because of the harm he knows they are capable of. This is also evidenced in the fact that he doesn't kill innocent people and there have been instances where he does by accident, such as shooting an undercover cop. When this happens, Frank does show remorse because he understands that it's his fault and possible did to someone what other criminals have done to him. And lastly, Frank does not do this of his own freewill, at least not completely. As we saw in the Netflix Show, after slaying all who are responsible for the death of his family, Frank attempted to stop and just live a peaceful life. The problem was that after everything he had seen as a vigilante, it simply became impossible for him to ignore the crime and villainy that he knew invested the city and thus took up arms again as a full time vigilante. Further evidence that Frank does not do what he does for fun. He does it because he can not stand the thought of people who commit vile acts going unpunished an thus chooses to do it himself. It's not different than Batman, Spider-man or any other super hero for that matter. They cannot stop being the heroes that they are. The only difference between them is that The Punisher is willing to take it a step further and deal with criminals in utter finality. Now there will always be a debate as to whether or not Frank's methods are morally acceptable (personally I think he walks the line and occasionally goes to far) but it's hard to deny the affect he has on criminals. Criminals may be wary of Spider-man, Daredevil and the Avengers but they truly fear The Punisher.
@Jaeger Newman Well in the comics he has enjoyed killing certain individuals a little but only on rare occasions though.
This was well written and a very valid point.
The end of season two of the Netflix series proves the beginning of this statement.
In the words of Robin: "So, killing criminals is bad, but you're okay with traumatic brain injury"!
Jaeger Newman you’re absolutely right. In season 2, when he goes home with the bartender, and they talk, you can see how much pain he’s in and will forever be in. He does have empathy, which fuels his desire to punish.
He's like a non-creepy, more badass Dexter
Dexter was lame. Oh so very lame. I'd like to see the Punisher/Dexter crossover.
@@farklealejandro2997
?
"...acted exactly the same."
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
Spiders do not act exactly the same as hawks. Gloves are not shoes. Shirts are not pants. Dicks are not pussies.
I found Dexter (the character and the show as a whole) silly and annoying. The whole premise of the show was dumb..."He's a serial killer, but he only kills bad guys!" Spare me. If you liked it, cool, but I did not like Dexter.
@NLR 1996
Not sure exactly why, but I just hate it. I found the premise face-palmingly dumb and the characters annoying.
A rage machine like Frank is rather creepy if you think hard about it.
Jack Bauer is a little bit similar to the punisher too, in the last season of 24 especially.
You know what the difference between justice and punishment is?
Punishment isn't blind.
Murdock probably didn't see that one coming.
@@lateralol 🤣👍
Justice can still be badass, too, though.
Yes but punishment is deaf it doesn't hear the right thing to do
*EDGE INTENSIFIES*
Honestly my definition of evil is someone who hurts innocents with malicious intent or for no justification whatsoever
I see what you mean, but you can’t say with no justification because in reality, it only has to make sense to the evil person in order to do things that he believes is justifiable. But frank Castle uses evil to kill the evil so he is basically the good guy
So Carnage?
I think youre wrong, i think he more or less does have a reaction to bad things happening or when he kills someone. When he sees innocent people being hurt he gets mad. He doesnt kill them bc he wants to. He kills them bc he feels like has to in order to save innocent lives. He doesnt care about the ones he kills families bc he figures those people are better off without people like that around them anyways. Also he doesnt just "not show emotion" he has a atrong military bearing. You learn that in boot camp. Some guys have even stronger bearing than that. My wife complained that i dont show emotion after i got home from boot camp too. Its just that we as marines are trained not to show any weakness bc the enemy will exploit it. Frank Castle is a man who takes drastic action to solve what is frankly a drastic problem. Other heroes like daredevil take less drastic action, but as seen in the comics quite often, guys the daredevil puts in jail get out so easy due to the system being screwed. Frank takes bad guys off the streets in the most effective way he can. Hes fast, effective, and efficient. He was marine recon. He doesnt play around.
The Punisher is a Marine like you.
He's also a mind blind pathological serial killer. Would you say the same of a non military vigilante killer?
@@farklealejandro2997 The talk is about Frank and what the guy in the video said specifically, not vigilantism like Frank's in general.
No,I kill because I WANT to and I LIKE it
@@frankcastle4547 edge
Hes most definetly not evil hes more like “chaotic good”. hes violent and scary but would never hurt a kid
just because the punisher doesn't hurt a kid but hurts an adult means hes not evil? really?
anyone who takes another mans life is lawless and evil. therefore the punisher isnt "chaotically good". he is evil
@@orbitalpunch4711 so I guess someone taking someone's life in self defense is evil in your logic then. Wow
TheHitman™
Is castle's killings classed as self defence in your logic? Smh
@change Mymind
lol wow. revenge and more violence is the answer right? if someone done that to my family, as human, first reaction is i want them judged and burned alive, castrated, obliterated etc. but we cant let our emotions drive us to the psychological state of the punisher. but we have to be better not become like the murderers.
the punisher got his revenge did he not? so why is he still going around killing evil people that have nothing to do with the death of his family?
did anyone ask him to avenge others too or did he just make himself judge, jury and executioner of all evildoers?
is he the most righteous of mankind to go about judging evildoers with the death penalty?
like i said to someone else on a different thread, if everyone took the path of hatred and revenge because people no doubt will hurt us in different forms, it will only lead to anarchy.
we need more LOVE not more revenge and hatred to at least soften this evil and cruel world. there is enough evil as it is.
anyways he is just a fictional character. he would have been shot at dawn by the government if he existed in the real world
@change Mymind
i've had my share of horrific pain from this wicked world myself. we all have in some way but no where near frank castle's obviously. some people have actually gone through what castle experienced but we don't have anyone known as the punisher in the real world or a crazed vigilante do we?
it is tragic but this is the kind of evil world we live in today unfortunately. one really bad day can drive any man like you asserted, to insanity or suicide.
i'm human and in reality my default reaction is, anyone who slaughters my family must die. but it will never take away my pain in the long run because my family are still dead. if the punisher was happy after his revenge, he would have stopped his vengeful actions after he got his justice but he didn't. He carried on killing to prove a point of social justice. he has no peace in his life and he is still unhappy and alone and never letting go of his pain and that is damaging.
i'm going into preaching territory here. if you are religious, God watched humans ruin this world for millennials. he sent his son to offer a solution and look how he was brutally killed. if God acted on his emotional pain, all of mankind would have been obliterated with a thought or by myriads of angelic forces. An eye for an eye, a life for a life. By default that is righteous justice from Gods standpoint but he looked at the bigger picture and chose LOVE over revenge.
we too can promote this kind of SELFLESS LOVE which is LACKING IN SPADES in this WICKED world. there is TOO MUCH HATE, REVENGE, VIOLENCE AND EVIL in this world. It's like a flipping neon sign. let us reduce it not multiply it. but ignore this gibberish if u ain't religious
my point is, as humans, if we allow ourselves to be guided by emotions all the time without a moment to pause and think, then we will most definitely be consumed by rage and do the unthinkable.
look at warfare for instance, libya, iraq etc. families get killed in these countries, don't these families deserve justice too? are all these people killed in warfare all pure evil? Did their surviving families go around in military gear seeking justice and revenge? terrorist group today in our world spring from these warfare and they too are seeking their self proclaimed justice by unjustified killings.
i hope i be the bigger person like God one day if i was in his shoes or castles, and not letting my emotions drive me to insanity and bitter revenge but show almost impossible selfless love.
but the majority of humans don't think the way of love but the way of frank castle's EXTREME VIOLENCE.
that is our sad reality unfortunately
Every
Villain
Is
Lemons
shiki fuujin W
I love bikini bottom news
I like it
ALSO KNOWN AS EVIL
EEEEEVVVIIIIIIILLLLLLL
The stare of penance of Ghost Rider has no effect on Frank Castle.
You know, the one that makes you suffer for every evil act you committed.
It has no effect on Thanos either, you know Thanos right? The mass murdering warlord and tyrant
@@TupocalypseShakur Yeah that's because Thanos is on par with a god.
Frank doesn't believe he ever did an evil act.
@@WexMajor82 he did once. But he didn't know who he was killing back with the marines, the Arab cop. He was beyond piss off when he found out, but that doesn't changed the fact that he killed an innocent man.
@@kingbjorn1832 thank you. nobody ever brings that up when people mention the penance stare which confuses me.
@@WexMajor82 no it’s because Thanos enjoys pain
*Frank Castle* is... *_VENGEFUL_* and rightly so.
yes exactly.
redxsage no not vengeance, punishment
If you base it on the movie, it isn't vengance that drives him, but punishment.
If you base it on the 50 years of comic book history, he’s not vengeful. He’s a murderer who enjoys killing people not a complete psychopath. But definitely a murderer who kills because he enjoys killing
I think the one defining factor that separates Frank from the evil he hunts is that, while he exhibits the same tendencies, he has self loathing for his nature. The evil people reveal in their actions for pleasure and personal gain. Frank hates himself but he knows his actions are necessary to prevent what happened to his family from happening again. I’m an Aristotelian Ethicist by belief and that states that the intent of the person doing the action qualifies the morality of circumstance. Frank truly does believe his way is the best way he can bring justice to criminals and protect the innocent, therefore, he can’t be evil based on my moral outlook. Just my two cents.
Interesting take, but I still believe that the Punisher is evil. He may be on the side of good, but any person who can torture and kill so many times and feel so little remorse about it is fundamentally evil, regardless of whether or not they deserved it. That being said, you did make good arguments.
Stephen T Thank you for the pleasant response. I see your point, if I may offer a friendly rebuttal, some see morality as humanity’s greatest tool and I think that’s a mutually agreeable statement. Would you agree that most evil people choose to abandon said moral tool for self gain or pleasure? You can’t use the tool of morality on those who choose to so vividly abandon it. Why should one such person be offered redemption and the use of moral treatment on them? It’s the breaking of the Golden Rule. They treat others differently then they want to be treated. So, ending them is fair game, in this particular example. Although, that’s the paradoxical nature of killing in the name of goodness, I suppose. One must commit extreme evil to end extreme evil. On a practical and personal level, I believe the death penalty should be legal in only the most extreme circumstances such as multiple homicides, rapes, and acts of pedophilia. The criminally insane get one chance at rehabilitation, if they repeat, they’re caused too much irreversible damage and they should meet their end for the betterment of society. I think the Punisher embodies the most extreme version of this thought process.
MotaShotta It may seem that way, I appreciate your response. Have you read Nicomachian Ethics by Aristotle? It covers Virtues and Vices and morality is on a sliding scale. For example, courage is a virtue which is a perfect medium between rashness and cowardice. Some situations will require a little more rashness or cowardice in order to maintain that perfect moderate virtue. Ideally, in the Punisher mind (and also, in a small scale, my mind) you only punish those that consistently stick to the vices and do not attempt to become virtuous. Things like lying and murder are considered vices but nature because there is no inbetween, there’s either all dead/all untruth or no dead and all truth. So, Punisher would be immoral in the killing vice but as long as the vice is aimed at other “vicers” then it can’t be evil because Frank is trying to stop other vices from happening. Is Aristotle’s morality subjective? Potentially. But he very clearly defines moderation and virtues/vices as objective moral thoughts. Give it a read sometime, it’s not nearly as dense as Plato or Kant.
good point.
my two cents on the subject is that morality is a human concept that is always changing and evolving.It change with time,by culture and circumstance. My answer to that question :is the punisher is evil ? well i think that is in a gray area he kills to protect innocents by punishing the evil and corupt people so they may never polute society again.
Well put Lenia. I would add that humans are the only species that kill for pleasure or personal gain. Even in the animal kingdom when two lions are fighting over a mate and one of them is clearly losing, that lion will actually expose his vulnerable side to the aggressor for a quick death, whereas humans will torture/inflict as much pain to their victim as possible simply for self gratification. Really enjoying the psych discussion on this board.
The punisher isnt evil, it was justice..
Even Ghost Rider said that the punisher wasnt evil
Is it really evil to kill the ones who are evil? Absolutely not
@@Mauifer1 depends on the intentions. Travis from taxi driver killed sport and some pimps who were pimping out a underage girl but at the same time his intentions aren’t really pure. Travis kills them because he hates people and wanted to release his pent up rage upon someone.
@Rocky Croods Not even in the slightest. As explained in this video hes Psychologically evil, however this does not make himself completely evil. If Punisher was evil characters like Spider-Man or daredevil would never work with him. Punisher is by defintion an anti hero not a villian who seeks a selfish goal.
@The Sans if the world worked on this dumb statement more Jews would have been killed in ww2, terrorist would have more control over the Middle East... knowing when and not to take life is common sense some people don’t deserve to see another day and some people deserve to be locked up, pedophiles and murders should always face death they have taking or ruined someone’s life and shouldn’t have the freedom of being able to breath
If you honestly believe killing is wrong no matter the reason it makes you just as much as a threat to the world as someone that believes everyone should die
@Rocky Croods just stfu
Punisher isn’t evil his actions however might appear evil to others but morally he is good and he only ever kills evil people hell Ghost Riders Penance Stare didn’t work on him because he knew what he was doing wasn’t wrong he didn’t have innocent blood on his hands only the blood of The Ghost Riders typically victims the guilty
J Double C yeah I forgot about that lol
To be fair that feat is basically a wild misunderstanding of how the Penance Stare works. Not really an example of how pure the punisher is, more like an example of writers being unfamiliar with the Ghost Rider.
J Double C Oh he's evil alright. The fact that he takes life willingly is enough to justify it. Doesn't matter if the guys he kills are bad. Murder is still murder and a psychopath like him surely doesn't get to decide what's good and what's bad.
Leodark Sam actually it does matter he's doing everyone a favor
@Leodark Sam He is outlaw but not evil. He tries to administer justice when the justice can't do it. In Greek punisher means Keeper of honor. Yes he is illegal cause the law forbid his actions but he does it because he wants to protect innocents people and punishes the people who causes pain to them. Now days nobody cares about the other people's right, punisher does. This at least is honorable.
Frank Castle is an example for all of us. If Government does not protect us, if the law can be so easily corrupted and criminals remain unpunished, if justice doesn't happen for us, then yes Frank Castle is the example for all of us.
Nice
Group contagion ✅
The sky, is blue. 👍
That's a very dangerous line to cross, imo. I'm all for killing someone whose actively trying to kill you and yours, but to take it as far as Frank is a little much. All he really does is kill people who HE THINKS need to die. The only thing keeping his "moral compass" in check is himself, and I don't think he's very stable. He murders people for his own gratification; no one's paying him to do it and he doesn't have to go around killing. He does it because he wants to, plain and simple. If that's the example to follow, then why even have the law? Let's just lay down whoever we feel needs to lay down; we'll call it "Punishment", because the Law is inadequate.
I don't support that logic, mind you, but I feel that's the logic he uses. The Magnum Force used the same logic in the Dirty Harry movies and Venom carries that same logic as well; they both killed A LOT of people they found guilty because they felt the system was inadequate. Eventually that list expanded as they saw other.....issues...that needed correcting. Following The Punisher's logic just incites murder and lets the real crazies indulge in their vices. Laws are made to keep those kinda things in check. It's not perfect, but until changes come around that make sense, we should probably stick with it. That's my opinion anyway, lol
The law was is and always will be corruptible there is no doubt in that we always need someone like Punisher he is so right in doing wrong to those who've wronged.
“Evil” is Netflix canceling this show
Evil is malevolence on the innocent. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, ect are evil
The punisher is not evil.
Despite all of the excuses the show makes for him, we can't realistically know that everyone he kills is guilty - we certainly can't say they're all guilty to the point of deserving a death sentence, and besides all of that Matt Murdoch is right: He leaves grieving widows and sons and daughters in his wake. They seem innocent enough, that seems malevolent enough.
futurestoryteller
I know, right? I mean, Frank's actions are, by no means, justified in the eyes of the public. I personally personified my philosophy akin to Mattew Murdock. We have the capacity of violence, but we have the power to exercise how violent we can be. I agree that violence is not outright evil by definition.
Simpleton Osterson but if that is your significant other, parent, or child you probably would want to help people since the troubles your family member created.
Not "Well Stalin shouldn't die horribly cuz he is my papa and took me to theme parks." Lmfao
In addition to ignoring other facets of the overall argument, you didn't explain how ensuring that he does die "horribly" helps anyone.
redassassian
I have pacifistic attitude. I would want to help people who are deeply affected of the act, especially the victims of both sides. I would likely put Frank on trial, and send him to a private institution, and treat him humanely as possible.
What's more evil? Some sadistic killer. Or someone who blows that sadistic killer
to kingdom come so he doesn't ever kill again??
a sadistic killer or a sadistic killer who kills sadistic killers plus other criminals. That would be a more correct way to see Frank Castle.
LATVERIAN1 Frank is Psychologically evil not literally evil like other criminals.
He isn't Psychologically evil. Those who don't get it only think that. I.E...the naive.
true, but frank prefures to do it in a sadistic way.
Uh...not really. Frank Castle more often than not is not sadistic towards those he kills. He puts them down quickly and efficiently, only torturing select criminals for select reasons or to get information.
He does not prefer to do it in a sadistic way, he prefers to do it the quickest way possible based on the situation. Usually head shots or attacks on a person's vital organs.
3:10 I don't think he has a moral code, I think he has an ingrained sense of morality. Batman has a moral code because he has rules to follow whereas the Punisher doesn't he simply does what he feels is right.
In the immortal words of The Doctor "Good men don't need rules..."
Abbahahaha
Batman does what he feels is right.
@@ThanosDestroyeryearsago in some interpretations, yes he does.
@@ThanosDestroyeryearsago batman is a fool in that aspect.
Castle has a moral code just like Batman he takes the trash out and makes sure they stay down he doesn’t go out and kill random individuals rather criminals that deserve it…
Batman and Daredevil are fairies compared to Frank Castle.
Batman is easily the craziest out of the three
@@Anubis-xk4ht id say hes the most sane one
Anubis Not even close. He actually has marbles left.
*CORRECTIONS AND THINGS*
1) I for some reason said Amazing Spider-Man 124 even though it was 129. I showed the right cover, though. Counts for something, right?
2) I know the premise of diagnosing "evil" is a bit strange, but really it's just about diagnosing a mental condition that causes people to commit acts the average person might see as evil. Not sure if I explained that properly.
3) This video was already demonetized, so HUGE thanks to our Patrons for supporting us! www.patreon.com/NerdSync
4) Punisher? I barely know her! (I'm so sorry)
That pun 😂 👌 we forgive you Scott
Already demonetized? Not surprising given the video clips, but that was fast...
NerdSync I
Great video!
Studios don't understand the concept of fair use do they?
I think his deep regret and remorse over killing that cop at Kandahar proves he isn't evil. He also shows similar regret when that kid screams out that he killed his father. Even his own self-reflection on whether he is a monster or not shows that some of the killing he does lives with him, and he isnt completely desensitized to it. Id love to see an arc in a future season where he accidentally kills an innocent who he thought was evil and then realises what he did.
That’s what the punisher show is about the torture video when frank was still in the military and he shot and killed the guy who was getting tortured he regretted that and wish it never happen to this day sort of speak it still bothers him he regrets killing the guy he tortured cause he don’t believe in killing innocent people so that really took a toll on him that’s why they ended killing his family cause they know that he knows it was wrong but was afraid he might slip the secrets out
_"Evil? I call it a public service."_
I am necessary evil - bane
@@matthew_natividad no anti heroes are what the society and the world needs people who got the stones to do what has to be done
He's a garbage disposal man🚮
@Dark Executioner probably but this is fiction lol do you even know the terrifying mount of police officers who idolize the punisher...
@@ghostofdeath7388 I hope you’re a 13-year-old and going through your edgy phase, and not just a horrible despicable human being
He is. He does evil things to evil people. He is a necessary evil to combat evil.
Doing things to stop evil is a good thing, no matter what it is.
@@RevRyukin7 Being evil and not being good are different things
Fight evil with evil
Nah killing evil don’t make u evil if someone shot my mom i front of me and passed me the gun uhhhh definitely shooting
James Marvel But Frank would kill other people who are like him even if they are rebellious towards corruption because he cant tell the difference, he would regret it but he would still do it because he doesn’t know whos who sometimes
“In normal times, evil should be fought by good, but in times like this, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil”-the Chronicles of Riddick.
Mermaid Man voice: EEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIL!
P.S. love the new simpler into.
Thanks so much! I originally had much more complex plans, but I scrapped it for something short and simple. Glad you like it!
NerdSync I mean, I still love the old animated covers intro, but this is significantly better for topics like this.
W
Levi Phipps exactly😭
even IF he is evil, he's the necessary evil. although, I wouldn't say he's really evil. he has emotions that he desperately tries to seal off, but ultimately fails. he cares a lot about Karen Page, he also showed up to help out Daredevil, and he didn't have any kind of advantage from that act. That alone counters almost all of your arguments on why Frank is evil. And like Khorne Berzerker mentioned below, you have to take into account who he kills. Those people would face a death penalty, if, of course they face a fair trial and absolutely none of the participants are bribed. So... What Frank essentially does is... cut off half the equation, that includes crooks and unfair jurisdiction system. He cuts straight to the bloody busyness and the high ranked criminal gets exactly what he supposed to get. Period.
99.99% of all his victims had already been to prison and decided NOT to change for the better when they got out.
"period" oh fuck off, its a revenge fantasy for losers. frank is complete scum, revenge is never justice and all he does is take revenge, his motivations selfish and ignorant.
I dont think that Frank Castle is Evil. The E-Syndrome dont aply like a label to him.
Castle wasnt only a soldier, he was Spec Ops for MARSOC, so thats mean he have a lot of action in Afganistan and Iraq acourding the timeline, Diferently for regular forces, SpecOps are always on action and the training make a physical and psychological adaptation for combat enviroment, prepare for the worst.
Basicaly he kill in that way not for enjoy it, cause he’s efficient doing it, cause the mayor damage to the enemy for a total elimination. He almost always was operating alone so he cant take de luxury to getting eliminate by a enemy he wound.
PTSD ? Yeah almost everybody in our society have it without know it. So he 90% certain he’s afected worse his family was masacre in front of him and i dont know nobody who keep cool in front of that kind of looses and dont try to make justice.
He doesn premeditate murders. He planed all his operations, way in and out, no civilians casualities and dont get kill by enemies hands.
He like most SF soldier live by a Ethos with a moral compass
He dont think on remorse with his target cause they do harm society voluntary drive by money power and control taking the wrong way morally, or in other ocations he just defend himself from getting kill like the bar Scene or the prision with kimpings imates.
He try to be alone and apart from everybody cause he feels like every person close are in constant danger.
He isnt Evil, he have the courage to do whats its need to do when its need.
In a life or death scenario there’s no time to hesitate or doubt, first act and if you live then you judge your acts.
Kill its good but sometime is necesary and thats no evil.
And marines have the warrior ethos set by mcmap and the marine program
I think you said it best.
Eh...Syndrome E has a cool name, and trying to define it came from a good place, but I'm not sure what place it could have in psychology. It's too symptom-focused to be used in treatment and too cause-focused to be used in diagnosis, and that's not getting into the ways that this diagnosis would be misunderstood or misused.
This definition of evil can be used on almost every superhero, if you think long enough. Spiderman and captain America or iron man don't kill that often but they have no problem with violence on a daily basis. An I am sure, they have ptsd in some Form. And they all have an ideology that justifies their violence.
Superman? We've seen evil versions for sure; as absolute power corrupts absolutely. But the man of steel that we've come to know and love over the years abhors violence, resorting to it when all other measures have failed, and chooses self sacrifice over self preservation EVERY TIME.
That's why I said almost every superhero.. . The Doctor from Doctor who is another example of a "superhero" who only uses violence as the very last way out.. Sometimes even not then. My point is: would you count Spiderman as evil because that definition includes him in some way?
Honestly it seems like someone who is trying to scientifically define a morality trait within D&D. The first one is easy... between lawful and chaotic, he's definitely chaotic. But between good and evil? I think to be ACTUALLY evil you have to know what your doing is wrong. Frank doesn't do this (nor do the majority of bad people)... for this reason I would say frank is just anti-good.... which is the exact reason that he's an anti-hero. That said, he should definitely be in jail (because he's unlawful).
hmmmmm, that implies that in order to be evil or do evil you must have intent and conviction in your actions? I would argue that an individual that has PTSD would have a difficult time proving intent either way, that the disease either robbed them of the intent or that they just lacked intent due to the nature of the trauma.
The problem with trying to use this is a blanket statement for super heroes is that those fictional individuals are given difficult more impact full "trolley problems" in regards to the inherent morality of right and wrong/good and evil. Whilst for use regular joes, the question might be simplified in a way that shows us what our individual foundations of values/morals are (A sort of bias or predjudice i guess). For heroes in a fictional world where the rational choice isnt always the obvious, taking the ironman example on board you can tick off certain things that would definitely make him a sociopath (or full blown psychopath) in our world, but those things also define him as a hero in a way (the difference between him and a civilian is that he has to make tough decisions where the outcome isn't always positive where the civilian can choose not to act and as such have no accountability, if ironman chooses not to act then he is going against his own morals and ideology making him the same as a criminal by intent.
I guess it's a question of can an individual be pure good or pure evil or do we need to redefine our own subjective ideals on what that even means? You can argue that evil people (im generalizing here) can make decisions and act in such a way that the outcome is beneficial for others (can you be evil and selfless or are those inherently opposite ideals?) Does the action of being selfish make you evil?
This is an interesting thought, thanks for sharing fam! :)
This video was so well made...good job.
Thank you so much!
NerdSync No problem 👍
The Black Lion Oh hey, you like this channel too. Nice.
its well made but there are a TON of issues in this analysis and argument
'Killing a criminal makes you one'
That is the typical lame excuse a sanctimonious fool.
Criminal is a term used by the legal system to put a label on people who broke the law, killing a serial killer does not make one a killer
@@Mauifer1 I know that which is why I said *typical lame excuse a sanctimonious fool* because sanctimonious people always use that excuse to justify not killing a villain.
@@linkzellda yeah I agree with you, it’s mostly the millennials and the ignorant people that believe in something so absurd
Like batman
@@Mauifer1 Its not a generation thing, its a life style thing, the only people who think that way are happy little snowflakes and rich brats born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
last time i was this early, adam west was punching baddies.
Onat rip Adam West. Wish I went to LA Comic Con 2016 to take a picture with the cast
Onat R.I.P. Adam West-kun
sorry, Adam West-Senpai 😢😭😭😢😢😢😢
I don't think or perceive Frank as evil, by definition. In the same way I don't see violence as purely evil, but as a consequence of an action. Now one could argue that with the right mindset, one could trigger violence anywhere, and that would be evil, then, Punisher (Frank's response to the violence he went through) is a product of evil, just like violence is a consequence of it.
Now Frank's embrace of his Punisher persona is him accepting his violent tendencies, i see him as violent, but not evil, which I think might be his own way of perceiving himself. He sees himself as a broken shell, the normal and kind man (with hidden violent tendencies) inside has died, because of evil, and the violence - the product/consequence - is, ironically, Frank's way of fighting back against the very evil that killed his family (and his former mentality). He is imprisoned by evil, but not necessarily corrupted by it.
(Sorry if this is confusing, english is not my first language)
Lucas Machado so like doomslayer ( he gave up his world to have his son back, but, the demons brought him back as the icon of sin. Needless to say that opened the demon's version of pandora's box for the next few eons till they sealed him)
Aren't you mixing up Doom Slayer and the Betrayer?
Lucas Machado maybe but it is implied that they are one and the same
optimusboy1 Really? That's cool, guess I missed that
But Doomslayer also has something different going for him.
he fights actual demons, the picture people have when they think about "evil" not only that
the Slayer was also powered by a powerful angel, because of his "incorruptible" soul.
Punisher on the other hand kills off criminals left and right and while they do horrific acts themselves, they still can be good family men.
You know the the saying “fight fire with fire”? That’s frank castle
The the
In order to kill a monster, you gotta be an even greater one
Dang! The quality of your videos has been BETTER! in the army we love the Punisher logo and when we can with civilian clothing or items that can apply via patch. We always wear It! So this video was AWESOMETACULLAR to watch!
Thanks! Glad you liked it! It's cool to see comic book imagery transcend the medium!
I think him meeting Dexter would be very interesting.
Based on how he interacts with Daredevil he'd say "You gotta bump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers"
Haha right he be like rookie number dexter wtf
Pretty sure tv show Dexter killed 100+ by s8. That's a pretty good streak.
The "psychology" presented here is a joke. Most of those points that you say match Frank Castle (and, thus, show him to be evil) could be applied to most soldiers. And how about some of those symptoms that you skipped? One says, "obedience to authority and dependency on group support..." So being a rebel and a loner is somehow indicative of NOT being evil? Another symptom in that list was "perseveration". So any athlete that continues to push themselves after the effort is deemed by most to be pointless, often even to the detriment of their own health, is showing signs of being evil? I don't think I'd listen to this Itzhak guy on anything.
SgtSupaman I have to agree but don’t be rude
SgtSupaman I agree this a joke.
DanOfTheWild needs to get off the internet. and go back to school.
0 0, you missed the point. I know Frank was a *marine (not a soldier), so he is going to be like most soldiers. The point is the fact that Itzhak's little 'guide to evil' can be applied to Frank's characteristics in ways that line up with most military people in real life means you can use this bogus psychology to call all of those real life military people evil. It's been over a month since I watched this video, so I don't remember all of it that was mentioned (and I don't feel like watching it again), but I remember one of the 'symptoms of evil' being something along the lines of desensitized to violence. That is something that can apply to almost every person in the world. Almost anyone that is around violence gets desensitized to it. That is why I'm saying Itzhak is full of crap.
I agree
Depends on your definition of evil, really.
Wolverine has the best stance on this. He kills only when someone threatens his life. (Atleast in the comics I've read) Completely different from someone who breaks in with assault rifles and decides who lives or dies. It's unfair to assume everyone he targets deseres a brutal death because they are a part of a criminal organization. Everyone deserves a trial. You can complain about whatever justice system we have but mentally disturbed vigilantes with severe PTSD isn't much better. Not only does he risk targeting innocent people but he puts civilian lives in danger. He stormed into a hospital in Daredevil. A more realistic portrayal of this kind of thing is the ending of Taxi Driver
To Frank Castle, it is war, it is always a war, and the criminals are the enemies in a never ending battle that he said yes to back in 'Nam.
A rabid dog gets put down every time. Not always because it has harmed someone, but simply because it has proven to be rabid. For the extremely high probability it WILL in time hurt someone because it is rabid. The Punisher follows the same path. He puts down those who have proven to be criminally rabid through action or complacency. Those who have criminally hurt others, and with extremely high probability will again, and again. He acknowledges that you can not train or rehabilitate a rabid animal regardless of the species.
People get trials
Animals get put down
@Rocky Croods So kill them all and put them out of their misery.
@@shanem4703 I'm pretty sure punisher qualifies as "rabid" as well.
punisher is what the world needs.
to weed out degenerates
Fuh real yo
The Question
Absolutely
The system is not strong enough these days, so we need a guy like him
It will change...
This is a great essay, Frank as he has stated he enjoyed being covered in blood and being with his marines often more then he enjoyed being home with his family. I served in the marine corps as a rifleman and I can testify that there are absolutely nutcases who join because they want to kill people and not go to prison for it. He isn’t evil in a traditional sense because of which side of the line he fights on. But he does enjoy killing people. Even before his trauma. I believe that in the MCU he is more of an embodiment of the grim reaper among the heroes. If the heroes were the Greek pantheon he would be hades. The necessary force or evil dealt onto those who kill.
Frank is a Combat Vet, he is not evil but he definitely walks that line sometimes.
Psst. He's a vigilante. That's not political.
It's an ever rising debate in politicals
I'm the force of nature
Vigilantism can very much be political.
@@farklealejandro2997 Frank for president!!!
I hope this is bait. Of course it’s political.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he was evil and Damn Scott! This video is really well edited, good job and good video
Hey, thanks! I appreciate it!
The Punisher is NOT the hero that people want. But he is the hero that people need! Enough said.
A week doesn’t go by where I don’t eagerly wait for a new nerdsync video.
That genuinely means so much to me!
NerdSync 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
I'd say he's evil. He had that one comic where he teamed up with Eminem, and Eminem was holding the guns sideways like a stupid. That's pretty evil.
Nothing eviler.
But real talk though, on the subject of quantifying objectively what evil can manifest as, I really do think you've made a compelling case. The fact that people actually rally behind the emblem of the skull, even trained soldiers, is disturbing in this context. I understand you don't like being political, but I really wish people would consider what a symbol means before they adopt it. Who knows, in a couple of decades, the ISIS war banner will become a printed T-shirt, alongside Che Guevara.
Interestingly, when asked how he felt about soldiers using the Punisher emblem Jon Bernthal somewhat obliviously stated that he was proud those soldiers identified with the veteran's experience they'd depicted on the show, as though the soldiers had not adopted it before they'd seen the show, as though the comics have always had that thematic resonance, and/or as though they hadn't possibly adopted it before they'd ever seen combat etc. Despite being a gun owner IRL, he says he believes in restrictions, and was a little less gracious to the Alt-Righters who'd adopted the symbol, saying simply "fuck them."
Sprinkles Sundae People like the skull because it's archetypical. It stands for something inevitable and unavoidable. You and I will face our deaths one day. It's really almost shakespearean so I think people embrace the symbol of death to exult in life, not to accept Frank's murder spree.
I think that's a fair point to make. It's definitely intimidating as well, which is useful for a cause aimed at stomping out injustice and terror in the world. I'm just offput by how easily such things can be misused to bring others to support something that shouldn't be supported. _Group Contagion_ , as Scott taught us.
I absolutely hate the idea of calling evil a disease. If it’s a medical condition, then how are you able to incriminate someone who is evil? You can’t blame someone for something they can’t control.
I love how violent Scott made this video. A very different scott to the non stop pun making machine that the normal Scott.
RUclips already demonetized it, so I hope it was at least entertaining to watch. Haha
NerdSync This is actually a really awesome video, id say do more of these but if you're going to do one on someone like Rorshac say goodbye to monetization
Him: "i dont even know what a monsoon is"
Me: *laughs in arizonan*
Thank you for specifically stating what seasons of what shows are getting spoiled in the beginning. I genuinely appreciate that.
In many ways, he is a textbook clinical psychotic; disconnected and unable to relate/empathize with others-- or himself.
His skull is empty: the only things left in his head, the only reasons he's not a catatonic sitting in a chair and drooling, are two principles.
1. The innocent must be avenged.
2. the guilty must be punished.
The fact that these two are in a specific order is the only reason he is not an outright villain. He won't allow an innocent to come to harm for the sake of punishing the guilty. Hell, he doesn't even kill every criminal he finds-- only the ones that directly (or indirectly) cause death to the innocent. He even spared the Rhino "I punish the guilty, not the stupid".
His killing isn't about vengeance; it's just an obsession, practically a day job.
He does not like killing. He does not enjoy it, or feel any emotion over it (His tussle with eh Ghost Rider proved that). He has the Hannibal Lecter thing going on; he doesn't feel any excitement when he kills, or even when he gets hurt. He's practically a robot.
He's neither good or evil in it's own right. And neither is really quantifiable anyway.
He's a particularly nasty gray area. That's what makes the character interesting.
Personally, I am NOT a fan.
But there is some depth to this character.
I'm going to disagree with you that the Punisher doesn't feel any emotion when he kills. I think it's pretty obvious that he feels a thrill when he kills. Probably less of a happiness and more of a wildness.
If you're talking about Ghost Rider putting the Punisher in the penance stare and had no effect on him, it doesn't necessarily mean he's emotionless, it meant he felt no regret or guilt of the people he killed. I don't believe Frank lacks any emotion. In the show he's seen as always angry and when he's with Karen you can see that he's happy just talking to her or even Micro or his family. Frank isn't a robot, he's just a well motivated man with incredible will power to take down his enemies which he views as true evil. I believe what you're saying is that he lacks empathy for those that he kills, which I thoroughly agree with.
.
@@tron6768 What if we all killed everyone we saw as evil? Almost everyone would end up dead.
"Sometimes the world doesn't need another hero, sometimes what it needs is a monster"
The Punisher and Daredevil arguments will forever hold some of the best moral reasonings from two different sides.
Frank is considered a vigilante in my book. He has killed the people who needed killing, but also has done some questionable acts, but then again people don’t always know the full story.
Frank Castle doesn't murder people.
He punishes them.
Frank Castle doesn’t punish people.
He punishes monsters.
Frank castle sow murder people
I just thought I would point out what others pointed out about syndrome E. You could literally use these as qualifiers for any active combat troop
it literally says it discounts things done in an emotional or battlefield state
Scott, the production values of your newest videos has been fantastic. I stay subbed because I love the analysis, deep research, and adherence to great video editing. Keep it up!
One bad day to becoming him....we’re all inherently evil..
False, Nothing is inherently evil or good. We have a choice to be either, thus is the point of self determination.
@@reaverfang377 we’re not born good or evil, it’s only what we go through and how we lived that will determine what we’ll be in the future
@Rocky Croods why are you commenting under everyone here
damn if Frank Castle is evil I guess that makes me evil because I just love seeing him brutalize his targets.
I think that before we can psychologically diagnose evil, we need to philosophically define evil. Of course, we could make it easy and think of "evil" as the same thing as Syndrome E, but I think that's ignoring the bigger question. What is thought of as "evil" varies greatly depending on who you're talking to.
Is it evil to refuse to help a stranger in need? One person might think evil is a lack of compassion; inaction in this case is an evil act. Another might think it is only evil to actively hurt someone; inaction in this case is morally neutral.
While we're talking about moral philosophy, I should also mention deontology (the idea that morality is based on rules) and utilitarianism (the idea that what is good is what brings the best result for the largest number of people). A deontologist would say that killing is wrong, therefore Frank Castle is evil. A utilitarian would say that by killing evil people, Frank prevents them from hurting many more people, therefore Frank Castle is good.
While writing this, I've realized that I've mainly focused on the morality of actions rather than psychology. And that is also a good question: Is good and evil about actions or psychology?
If evil is about psychology, then perhaps it can be diagnosed (though we would still have to define what evil is. Is it the same thing as Syndrome E? Or perhaps something related to the Dark Triad traits (narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy)?
If evil is about actions, then obviously it can't be diagnosed. It could perhaps be psychologically predicted how likely someone is to perform evil acts, but you can't psychologically diagnose something that isn't psychological.
I understand that you are attempting to re-contextualize the conversation, and in that way you are arguably playing devil's advocate in cases that may not necessarily be your opinion especially where alternatives are presented, however I would like to argue some of the points regardless of your opinions on them.
"Is it evil to refuse to help a stranger in need? One person might think evil is a lack of compassion; inaction in this case is an evil act. Another might think it is only evil to actively hurt someone; inaction in this case is morally neutral."
If you don't help someone but can _afford to_ you have made an active decision not to help them, it is a yes or no proposition after all. "Help or don't help?" You've _decided_ not to, knowing that the result will likely be harm to the other person, and that is not morally neutral. Moral grey arises when being unsure of whether or not you can afford to help them gets in the way of making the decision to do so.
"A utilitarian would say that by killing evil people, Frank prevents them from hurting many more people, therefore Frank Castle is good."
But as you've said we have not defined evil, so to brand Castle good because he defeats evil as a way of discovering whether or not he is evil is a non-starter However empirical evidence does not indicate that actions like Frank's prevent crimes from occurring, since revenge killings are most often perpetrated against innocent people. Due to misidentification and so forth. Plus the rising death toll, and antagonism could be seen as contributing to an escalation or inflammation of crime, encouraging more desperate, aggressive and damaging tactics to be carried out in response. After all working tentatively for a drug lord might allow some wiggle room for a person who is willing to speak to prosecutors, but under Frank's ideology it's an instant death sentence. Which also means in the event that the ruling criminal has a particular skill for evading Castle exclusively Frank virtually ensures they *won't* be punished. You can see some of this escalation in the response to Frank and Micro's actions in the kidnapping of Micro's family, both of whom Agent Orange seemed pretty keen on torturing to get to Castle. An event that would not have occurred if Castle had not come after them.
"Is good and evil about actions or psychology?"
I would have to say it's about social psychology and/or biological devastation. Knowing what impact ones life has on the lives of others, what affects it has on the system as a whole.
futurestoryteller, you've actually made Karl-Kristoffer Johnsson's point for him. You put forth your opinions on the matter, but the point is that they are debatable. Not everyone is going to agree with what you stated. For instance, I would say that you can just not answer at all (never decide to help, but never decide to not help), and you will be passively letting something happen, not actively deciding anything.
Also, you are missing the point of utilitarianism. The utilitarian looks at the overall result. If the Punisher kills 10 mass murderers and 20 small time criminals (and maybe even kills a few innocent people unintentionally), but saves 100 people from those mass murderers, then the Punisher did good. Obviously, if something could be done where only the 10 mass murderers died and everyone else was saved, that would be better, but, according to the utilitarian viewpoint, bad things (like the deaths of a few innocents) are acceptable when it comes to the greater good, and losing those few is preferable to the Punisher not killing anyone and 100 other innocent people die.
"For instance, I would say that you can just not answer at all (never decide to help, but never decide to not help), and you will be passively letting something happen, not actively deciding anything."
My point is that this _actually_ does noes not conform to logic. By not answering you are refusing to help. The only way to be neutral would be to not know that anything is going on.
"Also, you are missing the point of utilitarianism. The utilitarian looks at the overall result. If the Punisher kills 10 mass murderers and 20 small time criminals (and maybe even kills a few innocent people unintentionally), but saves 100 people from those mass murderers, then the Punisher did good. "
Those are generous numbers for a fantastical hypothetical.
"according to the utilitarian viewpoint, bad things (like the deaths of a few innocents) are acceptable when it comes to the greater good, and losing those few is preferable to the Punisher not killing anyone and 100 other innocent people die."
Then it would not be controversial to admit that a utilitarian would not be averse to innocent people dying.
First, indecisiveness does not equal refusal to answer. If someone pulls a gun on a person standing next to you and, in the second between them aiming the gun and pulling the trigger, you don't shove the person out of the way of the gun's aim, you would not be at fault for refusing to help (from my point of view). Your inaction meant that person died, but your inaction wasn't the cause of that person's death. The shooter was the cause of that person's death.
Second, generous numbers? We are talking about a comic book character! The Punisher goes up against mass murderers on a regular basis, and 100 would probably be low balling how many people could be killed by even one of those villains, let alone ten.
Third, ethics and morals really aren't as cut and dry as everyone thinks they are at first glance. A utilitarian would likely be just as averse to innocents dying as most anyone else, which is why they would prefer three or four of them dying as opposed to hundreds of them dying. There is a very popular thought experiment called the "trolley problem". Basically, you are standing next to a switch for the rails of a trolley (in such a way that you can't reach the tracks, only the switch). Five people are tied to one track and one person is tied to the other track and a trolley is barreling towards the five people. Your choice is to actively throw the switch, causing the trolley to switch tracks, and kill a person, or to passively watch five people die. The utilitarian will say it is better to throw the switch and save the five over the one. Meanwhile, others would say it is better to be a passive observer and to let five people die than to actively kill someone to save the rest. The point is, there is no right answer. Whichever one you choose, somebody will think you're wrong for doing it that way.
True, one cannot diagnose behavior that is not a psychiatric disorder. "Insane" is a legal term meaning "not knowing right from wrong," while "psychotic"is a psychology term that means "has hallucinations and delusions." Good and evil are about both psychology and actions, since the former studies behavior. Psychology defines evil as the Dark Triad, Antisocial Personality Disorder, pyromania, etc. Both neglect and violence are evil, since they harm others. As for philosophy, the Punisher franchise is clearly utilitarian, while most other superheroes are deontologists.
Terrorist or not, he doesn't hurt the innocent. Just like Superman, Batman, Spider Man, Daredevil and every other hero or vigilante in the DC and Marvel multiverses, he thinks he s above the law, and acts accordingly by hurting those he considers to be "evil".
Frank Castle and Bruce Wayne are not that different. One just kills "the bad guys" and the other leaves them on a wheelchair for life. To be honest, as much as I love Batman and his moral code, I am sure as hell that many of the people he leaves paralyzed for life, would have prefered a swift death.
Batman doesn't leave people paralyzed. Broken bones, sure. Concussions all day. Paralyzed? Nope; not his MO.
You watched
"Batman V. Superman Dawn of Justice"
Batman.
Geo Net Are the main villains in wheelchairs ever? They seem to never get injured by Batman.
@@dogestranding5047 wasn't talkin about the main villains. There would no longer be a Batman if he paralyzed all his badass super-villains. I was talking about the COUNTLESS normal criminals he has kicked the crap out of, causing irreparable damage to them.
Broken bones, cut fleshes, bloody faces they all heal, and accidentally killing or gravely injuring scumbags in order to save innocenct lives or his own life does not announce Batman that he breaks his own moral code. Because simply put, the scumbags get themselves killed/injured by their own stupidity.
When you charge with a knife or a gun at an extremely efficient combatant or a dangerous vigilante with no weaknesses you are bound to get yourself hurt especially if you are a bad guy. It is not Batman's fault that in some part of the combat he punched at your throat and broke your voice box, when his intention was to knock you out.
Remember he could have sinply gutted you like fish but he did not.
"There is no justice unless we make it"
Wow I've never been this early to a Nerd Sync video, awesome!
Check that off your bucket list! Haha
Reminds me of when Ghost Rider tried to penance stare Castle. It did nothing. But Castle wasn't always the Punisher. It suggests that he's never felt regret for any wrongdoing he's committed in his entire life. From the very first person he killed back in Vietnam, if that was even his first kill, he didn't feel a shred of internal turmoil.
We need more people like the Punisher. Especially nowadays. When justice is absent, the people make their own laws. Their own justice.
Dumbest thing to say
The Punisher is probably my FAVORITE tv show series of all time, however, I don’t think he is evil whatsoever, i’d be with him given the chance
Frank Castle can't be evil, in the netflix show, he thinks he killed 3 innocent girls when he didn't, and he was ready to turn himself in, or even die, showing that he shows remorse and thinks he killed people who didn't deserve to die.
"While everyone else is taking life, I’m going to be saving it” ~Desmond Doss *(Hacksaw Ridge)*
I'm not sure if their is a psychological term for it but I think Castle is seeking his own death. Yes he wears body armor, because he intends to kill those he sees as deserving it, and he wants to take as many "bad guys" with him as possible. I also got the impression from many of the better written comics and the Netflix series part of him wants yo keep fighting and an other wants to die, but on his terms to go down fighting. This is also common in military and law enforcement personnel suffering from PTSD and might havee something to do with their personality that lead to them taking those career paths and from before they had PTSD.
I think everyone is forgetting that frank didn’t become the punisher because his family died, that was just his excuse. Frank was about to leave his wife and kids because he wanted to kill people with nick fury. Like the last thing he said to his wife was I’m leaving you. He only kills criminals because that’s the only way he can justify it in his head. If he ran out of criminals he’d turn to cops and then he turn to everyday people
Someone gets it. Punisher is a delusional narcissist, and should not be idolized.
The excuse was retcon he became the Punisher because his family died.
I once heard "It is
impossible to define evil because when you, think you have it all labeled & sorted into categories, A new type of evil emerges that then totally throws the worse acts into pale comparisons "
Absolutely and without question. Given the effect he has on society he may even be _objectively_ evil. Much like Batman - particularly Christopher Nolan's version, his claims of skill and tactful blame are questionable. Like when it is implied that his firing at Karen in a crowded hospital is "okay" because he's such a good shot, even though he is - among other things - using a *sawed-off* shotgun; a weapon known for its spread and not exactly renowned for its accuracy for that very same reason. He fires right over the head of a doctor who steps in his way, and doesn't flinch. He similarly does not have the time to background check every mook he comes across, and it's entirely possible that some of them (if not arguably most of them) are just poor people suffering under a bad situation, being taken advantage of - much like Castle was in his war service. His assumption that if they get in his way, or work for people who are worse, then they must deserve it, is exacerbated by the fact that his career in the military, which he looks on... fondly(?) involved doing just that, on behalf of Agent Orange. Up to and including committing murders for him. Additionally, how does strict adherence to that philosophy *not* put Karen's life in danger? Inarguably she *was* protecting the "scumbag" he was after. Even if he knew who she was, that's how he feels about her law practice anyway. How would we know (as the hypothetical Marvel society) that his claims about not trying to hurt her weren't excuses made after the fact? Also how does that ever justify firing a gun in a hospital. Are there not enough innocent people around to condemn that behavior? He _doesn't_ have superpowers, right? Can he see through walls?
Even his own show doesn't seem to shy away from this moral judgment entirely, while certain political statements made toward its mid-point are - I think - toxic and idiotic, particularly for a show that *cannot* tackle these themes with complete honesty, (owing to their brand) it's worth mentioning that it's difficult not to be uncomfortable in the bloodbaths that permeate the finale of the show, and it's even more difficult to imagine that this discomfort is incidental or exclusive to me. Central to this point are flashes of Castle in bed with his wife, encompassed by an empty void, in what I - at first blush - regarded as _only_ an uncomfortably tacky and sentimental visual cliche. However, we soon discover that this interspersion is a kind of lead-in to what can only be described as a near death experience for Castle. Drifting in and out of consciousness... or death, seeing his wife.
Throughout the show (and Season 2 of Daredevil) is an indication and outright acclamation (by Frank himself, no less) that Frank Castle has two homes. One is a life of domestication, and family and love. The other of war and conflict and even hatred. The question this raises in Castle, and others like Micro is "Okay... So which one is it?" Showrunner Steven Lightfoot is adamant that this is a real experiential problem for soldiers suffering from PTSD, which he attempts to show in more brutal honesty with the character of Lewis; a soldier who doesn't understand his place in civilized society anymore, and just feels emotionally compelled to find another war to fight, clinging to any and all reasons to do so, no matter how tenuous or delusional they may be. A mirror to Castle's ostensibly pragmatic approach (or excuse) to doing the same thing.
In Frank's darkest moment, in the midst of his torture, right before Agent Orange is killed, Frank sees his wife again who asks him to come "home." Doing so would force Frank to let go of his hatred, and while he knows that it will mean dying - abandoning his mission - Agent Orange will be arrested, and Frank will finally be with his family. Frank replies "I am home" before stabbing a man's eyes out of his head with the tips of his thumbs. As he lays down, to give in to death, and finally be reunited with his wife, he returns to the void to find.. no one is waiting for him. Visual metaphor, post traumatic hallucination, or spiritual experience: the message is clear, Frank chose his love of destruction and bloodshed over his love for his family, and because of that family will not be waiting for him in the end. He's sold his soul in a sense.
Personally I don't think it's controversial to say that a man who prioritizes rage-killing people - whatever his reasons - over his family can _only_ be seen as some kind of evil. Assuming the word "evil" is going to mean anything to you.
Very well written mate!
Superb analysis.
Collateral damage is necessary for the greater good ...
@@siddarth3955 Nope.
@@futurestoryteller That's being naive and idealistic
I think everyone is forgetting something about Frank, he thinks he is killing only people who deserve it. But do they? In season 2 of dd we see him gun down members of 3 gangs. We know they shot his wife and kids but not everyone in the gang shot at his wife and kids. Some members are there selling drugs or weapons. Some are body guards. And while they can ve violent i bet not even half of the people he killed had killed another person. Mugging is bad. Selling drugs...bad...murder bad but they arent all on the same level. Corner guy selling illegal weed isn't the same as the guy collecting "protection " money or the guy that gets involved in a shootout. The people in the gangs whether they are bad people or just disenfranchised lower class playing the hand they sre dealt in life are now all guilty of murder by association
he still is correct
and all he killed are bad guys after all
Well there was an episode of the punisher on Netflix where he stated that he will even kill people who has nothing to do with it have no idea but still working for the criminals that’s why he shot a soldier in the show
This is why the punisher is a better hero than Batman! The Punisher isn't looking to do good intentionally he's on a mission to kill rapists and murderers until he dies. It's both beautiful and sad because the punisher's entire existence is to fight until he dies. He'll never stop and think how many lives would have been saved if Punisher crushed Joker to death in the back of a garbage truck. If Punisher sliced open Riddler's intestines out! If Punisher blasted off Harley's Quinn's head! If the punisher scorched the entire Court of Owls with napalm and flamethrowers! How many lives would have been saved! All those people Batman murdered by letting the joker live! I think the Punisher would be sympathetic towards Mr. Freeze and Killer Croc. And he would team up with Red Hood because the punisher is not a cold hearted killer. He's not vengeance. He's punishment and he only kills those who truly deserve to die. The Punisher has literally nothing to lose. His entire family was gunned down by the Mafia. The Punisher is the hero Gotham deserves! Batman's no killing rule has increased crime in Gotham by 200%. The Punisher would decrease crime by 90%!
Personally I think there's something in him that tie’s him to constantly do these things. I think it's because he didn't have the chance to save his family from bad people so he's making sure no one else has to suffer
As much as I love the punisher ( he's my favorite anti hero). I love just a bit more comic book heros who do kill but just not all the time. I mean judge dredd, hellboy, and lady mechanika just like Frank they all have their codes of honor that they strictly follow. Like they kill but only to protect others, if absolutely necessary, and never something minor ( like killing murderous aliens ie dredd). It's just a reason why I love the punisher he has his code of honor he sticks to
I see a lot of people misinterpret The Punisher's character, that he's a good guy who rights wrongs. He says he does what he does for justice, but in the comics, it's explored how Frank had his bloodlust way before his family died. He always had violent urges, which he's suppressed thanks to his family. But when his family isn't there to keep him grounded in reality, he's his true psychopathic self. Sure, sometimes he genuinely helps people, but that's not why he kills people. He does it to satisfy his own bloodlust, while justifying it as a moral crusade, to distance himself from the acts he commits. He goes out of his way to hunt down other human beings, even if they are scumbags. What he does is undeniably wrong and evil. Defending his actions is rather disturbing to see.
Ikr. Punisher is a character people missed the point of by idolizing.
Frank Bloodlust was recon by Garth Ennis an idealist staunch atheist.
Thanks for video,Scott
BTW glad you back.
Good to be back.
Yeah me too and good luck on everything you dude.
I wouldn't say he is evil, yes his methods and actions are considered evil, but more or less every man Frank has killed were evil and deserved it in one way shape or form, he's doing what the justice system fails to do, he also doesn't seem to take joy or have a sadistic pleasure out of killing his victims (expect from the odd occasion) also as said he has a moral code that he doesn't cross, someone truly evil would be the opposite. I do think that some people can rehabilitate themselves and deserve a second chance but the lives of paedophiles, child traffickers etc. To be honest are better off dead, that's why I agree with a lot of Frank's ways but redemption can happen for some as there's good in nearly everyone. He's definitely a screw loose but in general i wouldn't say his evil. Good video though.
As I grow older, I find more and more that I'm of the belief that evil is something that one does, not something that one is.
Before you say the punisher is evil, have you count how many live the punisher save?
0
@@stevenking3966 by killing the evil guys ..... a lot more than 0
i wish a vigilante would come about my country
politicians rob dozens of millions from the people then admit it and brag about it on the phone..only after years the recordings by our version of the NSA are revealed
gangsters and undercover mafia do whatever they want ...
having them all dead would be so good
jailing them is impossible
they are all friends and they are the ones with the power to jail thanks to open bribery ..because guess what...they are also the ones that check for bribery and such acts
my whole country knows the politicians are corrupt to the bones ...yet we can't do anything or we'd face jail till death
0 cause he isn't real
When one has witnessed enough of human behavior, it becomes clear that the paradigm of good/evil is a null program.
Harmonious/disharmonious at least have the advantage of not needing to resort to metaphysics in order to appreciate.
How does one appreciate the concepts of harmonious and disharmonious without resorting to metaphysics?
I've always felt that the Punisher was the most tragically sad character.
We the reader watch helpless as a good man voluntarily forfeits his soul to cleanse the world of villainy.
Enjoyed the analysis. Problem is I disagree with the source as you described it. To me evil is enjoying or being compelled to do bad things to people. So with that you can qualify The Punisher as evil. But many of the criterium on the paper you sited aren't evil or, in my opinion, not a requirement to be evil, but they do exacerbate its consequences. For example Hitler, and Charles Manson are widely accepted as evil and the could rally followers but Ted Bundy, and Ed Gein, who are also widely considered evil had no such followers. Seems like the Doctor is categorizing charisma as evil. Also hyper-arousal aka hyper-vigilance, which many associated with paranoia does not make a person evil nor are all evil people hyper-aroused. Most evil people are caught early because of their lack of alertness and as a result never make it into infamy. Many very nice and virtuous people are hyper-aroused or paranoid due to many reasons. I think the author may have put the cart before the horse with this one. Hitler, and Stalin for example were notoriously paranoid toward the end of their lives as a result of the evil they had perpetrated versus being evil because of it. Perhaps I'm wrong and you simplified the points for the purpose of brevity and ended up not doing a great job of illustrating the paper's ideas. Or you had the same definition of evil as I did but that wouldn't make for a very long video, and that was the only document you could find with any lengthy analysis but just happened to be trash. Either way I enjoyed it and that's the real point.
Frank looks in your eyes .
You remember the boy in the 7th grade where you stole his juice from his backpack.
The last thing you see is his Glock on your forehead.
Fact: Frank actually ended up defending Matt Murdock as a kid from bullies during their childhood. (They referred to him as Big Frank Castle) So I guess he always had that darkness in him.
Got it’s so sad and scary to see how people completely missed the point of punisher and just idolize him as cool edgy murderer
Frank Castle kills people because he likes killing people. He’s not a complete psychopath. He has empathy. He is able to understand what he is doing is fundamentally wrong (everyone goes straight to the serial killers and cannibals and pedophiles and ignore the fact that Frank has killed just as many pot dealers kids caught up in gangs and drug addicts, committing petty crimes) he’s only ever been comfortable in a war zone when his family was killed, it gave him an extremely convenient excuse to do the thing that he wants to do and the thing that he’s the best at His only reason not to fight a war was gone and the people that took them just so happened to be an infinite faceless army that will always fight back Frank is not an aspirational figure. Frank is not a hero. The punisher is a hypocritical, vindictive, cruel murder. I absolutely love his character
The Punisher doesn't murder he kill the enemy ! The enemies of society.
Some times we need a Frank
I'm gonna be honest, I really don't know the answer to this one. In terms of hurting or killing innocent people, Frank Castle is definitely not evil in that regard. But the thing about evil is that it's a path, where actions are repeated to the point that you become what you do. But like I said, it's hard for me to say for sure, because I don't know.
Being a medical student I strongly believe that a person's mind adapts to a particular environment provided and can suit itself in that condition if the person is in that environment for a longer period.
For eg:- if your group have nerdy people then it is highly possible that one day you might also be a nerd if you stay with them for a long time. Now when the same person who has become a nerd is shifted to a group of people who are more into sports and are gym freaks. Considering the environment in which he is surrounded gradually his mind starts to accepts the information which it gets that is about sports and gym and slowly that person can be converted from a nerd to gym freak.
I think same thing happened with frank as earlier looking at his condition that is his family got killed, his best friend betrayed him, he was still in state of war zone he became rogue but gradually he got surrounded by good people like Karen page, his condition starts to improve as now he knows every person does not need killing and fast forward in season 2 he is better man as he does not kill that Russian gang boss and also john pilgrim even if they are criminals when compared to season 1 and in daredevil where used to kill each and every one even if that person had family because at that time he didn't care.
Very well said
"AAAAAH! AAAAAAH!"
"So I think we're off to a good start"
😂😂😂