The big error here is the assumption that time spent as Clark is of less moral worth than time spent as Superman. Remember that Kent is a Pullitzer prize winning investigative journalist, and his stories can and do have a tremendous effect on the general good. An indication of the type of journalistic integrity he possesses is the fact that he left his job at the planet when it became more of a Daily Mail and less of a Telegraph.
+kujmous even tho superman is a "good guy" and a hero, he is not on the side of humans, if humanity went "bad" and "evil" he would stop them or take them down, because of this he has to pretend to be a human to write/publish storys that will be accepted, i dont think as many people would agree with him as superman, even tho what he stands for. its a similar thing with bruce wayne and batman, he wouldnt be able to perform his life as bruce, if he dressed and behaved like batman.
@@Tyhros I know this is an old comment on an older video so feel free to ignore this. Another argument one could make is that fame often comes with pressure and publicity. While Superman writing under his own name would catch attention just because he is who he is, it would also be a feeding ground for undue criticism, suspicion (whether real or fake) and possibly attempts at libel or slander against superman.
There's a great SMBC comic where utilitarians convince Superman that most good he can do for society would be to pump a crank and generate electricity 24/7. Naturally because super strength, society rapidly progresses to post scarcity from all free energy at the cost of Superman becoming super bitter and going crazy. I think that's a reasonable argument why superman needs to be "grounded" as Clark Kent. Superman's mental health is a necessary factor in order for him to do good. The best way to ensure superman has relatively normal mental health is to let him lead a relatively normal life on the side as Clark Kent.
+NickCybert haha just about to mention that comic :) and i saw your post. I have heard similar arguments going along the line that: Technically every human could allways give more of themselves in any give situation. Why do you do X when you could give Y instead. If everybody allways gave everything they could. Nobody would be able live their lives. Every person superman save is good. But demanding superman to always save everyone would violate his basic rights. But maybe he is not considerd to have basic rights?
+NickCybert It seems to me that that SMBC comic www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305 shows how superman's mental health is unnecessary in order for him to do good, seeing as he did a lot of good while simultaneously going crazy. As to having him go crazy being morally wrong, it seems to be worth it to have one man go crazy while everyone else in the world gets everything else they could want.
Zach Ashton You're right, I misremebered the comic and thought superman went *violently* crazy. Anyways, to return to olly's video, I think we can rule out superman ushering in post scarcity. The crank is fictional, and probably not possible. So all we're worried about is regular do-gooding. For that, I think superman needs to be mentally sound since that kind of do-gooding needs sound judgement.
"Meddling when you don't need to is the essence of being a hero." ~All-Might Boku no Hero Academia has an interesting take on this conundrum, or rather many different interesting takes. All-Might (BnH's version of Superman, although not quite as invincible) operated for years under the principles of saving as many people as possible, but also focusing his attention on the situations and 'villains' that required his strength the most. Besides just the heroic actions he took, he believed in the value of there being a "Symbol of Peace," someone who shows unwavering strength and fortitude against villainy as a preventative deterrent to violent crime. Shigaraki, a main antagonist, was traumatized by being one of the people All-Might and the hero-centric society in general failed to save. He fell through the cracks and now he wants to tear down the entire establishment as he sees it as being based on false pretenses. Shigaraki believes All-Might's existence weakens society as a whole because people use him not as a model to aspire to but as an excuse to remain weak and passive. Another fantastic villain called Stain simultaneously idolizes All-Might and sees him as a bastion of humanity's potential, but because very few professional heroes live up to that level of selflessness and bravery, he says they don't deserve to call themselves heroes and kills the ones who deems to be watering down the very concept of a hero. It's fun stuff and a pretty fresh take on the action shonen as well as superhero genres.
I know this was posted a while ago, but there's another interesting aspect to All Might, Olly mentioned in the video that you should keep helping people until the amount of help you're giving outweighs what it is costing your physical and mental health and All Might in his weakened state all but dies because he dedicated arguably too much of himself to saving people. He constantly took detours to stop villains at the cost of his health and stamina (time in powered up form) even when they weren't the biggest threat or it seemed like other heroes could've handled it, and, while this did save people without a doubt, this sometimes left him helpless during times people needed him most. Obviously there is no one correct answer to any of these situations, but this kind of thing is interesting to think about.
I can imagine it's stressful being Superman, and perhaps being "off duty" as Clark Kent is necessary for his emotional wellbeing. I mean, it must get to you having Zod plotting your death from the Phantom Zone, or Metallo lurking around, waiting to kill you with kryptonite, or a bald supergenius looking to destroy you. Perhaps he's at the point of marginal utility as it is, and Clark Kent keeps him from ill effects of being Superman.
I'd imagine Superman would need things like socialization, relaxation, hobbies and whatever else. Being Superman 24/7 would probably result in him hitting burnout very quickly thus causing him to stop being Superman altogether or be less effective as Superman.
I'm in year 9 and I chose this as a stimulus for our philosophy club. Everybody enjoyed the video and it sparked lots of interesting questions. Thankyou for making this channel it has got me engaged with philosophy as well as being entertaining. Thankyou :-)
A lot of this for Superman is more of a sanity issue- despite what is said in Kill Bill, Clark Kent is Clark Kent- Superman is the costume, Clark the journalist is a disguise, Clark the man is the actual person. So from his POV, he actually CAN'T be Superman 24/7- it would mean giving up family, friends, his own time etc., and would get to him psychologically. He might be incredibly powerful, but at heart is he not truly a god or anything, just a man with special abilities. Being Superman 24/7 would break him. He's probably not a utilitarian. He seems much more categorical- for him, some things are just right and others are just wrong (he does actually OCCASIONALLY kill his villains and cause massive property destruction- Man of Steel did not make that up- but usually he felt he was forced to because his opponent was just that dangerous). For the most part he is portrayed as having a pretty rigid moral code and does not like to appeal to the Greater Good or Greater Happiness anything like that; it is sometimes used against him. Though like most people, he probably doesn't make any neat distinction in theory or practice. I wonder if you could argue that his Clark Kent persona actually does as much or more good as does his Superman one. Clark Kent is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who usually DOES support social justice causes or work to expose corruption- it is one aspect of his conflict with Lex Luthor, who is too rich, connected, crafty and powerful to just arrest as Superman but who might be exposed as a murderous sociopath by a bit of dogged journalism. And on the subject of Luthor, however much he dresses it up as honestly believing that Superman might be a threat, the truth almost always is that he, Luthor, is a selfish egomaniac who just doesn't like the idea of someone more powerful than him running around. There are SOME stories that suggest he thinks Superman is a threat, but he usually turns out to be a) lying, or b) self-delusional, and willing to kill hundreds to "expose" Superman, and really just driven by his own petty insecurities.
+NerdSync you failed, my day could have been better if you haven't written a "joke" that you have already have used before in another video, since you easily could have done so without sacrificing something comfortable significance. _Did_ _I_ _miss_ _the_ _point_ _of_ _this_ _video?_
I just wanted to point out how easy it is, to demand others to do something, by misusing this moral philosophy in this video. And since I have noted your comment in other video collabs was it an ideal time to do so. It was ment sarcastic, you just go on being you (you are doing a great job) ;-) In Superman's case are there hundreds of people dying every second, without him being able to do anything about it. People just can't live forever. I believe that Superman shouldn't spend time saving people from stuff like illness, unless it's a highly contagious plague, where he actually can do something good in a sufficient manner, or a sick loved one, that he don't want to lose.
Lex Luthor projects his own motivations onto Superman. "If I had Superman's powers, I wouldn't be as altruistic as he wants us to think he is, therefore his altruism is a sham."
I think when discussing why Superman is sometimes Clark Kent it's worth noting that in the really early golden age issues he didn't have super hearing or sight that could see radiowaves. Therefore the best way to know about what crime is going on is to work at a newspaper.
Two of the best Superman stories ever created deal with this exact question: "Kingdom Come" and "Superman: Peace on Earth". In "Kingdom Come" Superman tries to reign in a new generation of ultra violent heroes by coming out of retirement and working to "fix" the new heroes by putting them in a high tech gulag. It results in a massive and terrifying super civil war that obliterates half of Kansas, killing millions, and forcing Superman to fight Shazam. "Superman: Peace on Earth" shows Superman trying to help the U.N end world hunger, but he can't due to human interference. Funnily enough, despite all that power he still has limits.
revisiting this video 7 years later to answer the question "why's he have his job?" with, well, his job is investigative journalism! that contributes to society in a way his powers can't, his powers are just the bonus to help him achieve that! the "truth" part of "fighting for truth and justice" one of the first episodes of the animated series is him using his job as a reporter to track down Lexcorp's confidential arms dealing, and using his powers to stop them afterwards, then writing about it on the Bugle
Assuming that Superman as an intelligent being has emotional needs much like humans do such as companionship, social interaction, and a break from turning back time by flying around the world really fast one could argue that the point of marginal utility is his mental health. His mental health is a necessary part of him and his ability to preform heroic acts effectively (though I don't have research available to me personal experience says depression effects work ethic and ability to judge situations objectively). His time at Clark Kent allows Superman to interact with humans and form relationships with them as a normal person.
The question of whether Clark Kent is justifiable comes down to whether or not Superman could be effective in the long term if he wasn't grounded. It's impossible to know for sure-I imagine that question has been explored in at least three storylines which came to at least five conclusions between them. But there's another character I can think of who provides a possible example of what Superman could be without Clark Kent-Scion, from Worm. Without spoiling too much: Scion has all of Superman's powers and then some, but he felt unfulfilled. One day, he started going around saving people basically because he was told it would be a good thing, and he did that 24/7 for decades. Going further would be big spoilers, but suffice to say that Scion probably would have been more helpful during the story's climax if he had been more grounded in humanity. Self-care is important, even if you're a superhuman alien. (So is caring about your fellow humans, of course.)
Great video! Enjoying going back through some of your older content! I had a thought along the lines of what some have mentioned below. It's not necessarily the case that its a dichotomy between doing good things as Superman, and not doing them as Clarke Kent. I'd think Clark Kent spends at least some of the time as Clarke Kent helping people or doing other morally good things. Then, someone might respond, "well that's still bad because they could do more good if they spent more time as Superman". This is a argument similar to one I've heard against giving money to the homeless "that's bad, you could have given the money to a homeless charity and done more good". Leaving That discussion alone, that raises the question; is it morally bad to do something that (taken in isolation) is morally good, if it means that you don't do another morally good thing (that may have better consequences)?
Crowdfunded Spiderman reminds me of the crowdfunded D & D warlock idea, where various supernatural entities pay for the warlock to kill various things.
I recommend the comic book anthology series Astro City by Kurt Busiek in relation to this video. The whole series is amazing, but the first few issues deal with a Superman-like character and the psychological stress he's under with the pressure of being too able to save people. He tries to hold down a job and having some measure of a social life, but every crisis and emergency compels him to action. It's a really interesting character study of just the sort of situation a character like Superman must be in. As is the whole series, which is a collection of short stories from the perspectives of heroes, villains and average citizens, and how they view and deal with daily life in a super poweres city. Good stuff.
I think it was moviebob who had the argument that batman should quit being a vigilante cince he could do a lot more in his position of power without the mask then running around in the night.
Then again, why not both, so long as he targets gangs top-down as batman and bottom-up as Bruce? In good stories, they show him doing that, but in the majority they don't want to consider his flaws. There was a good recent arc in the comics where he was on a jury as Bruce because he didn't trust his judgement as batman. He argued against his own decisions as batman. Personally I much prefer superman, but at the very least the comics are tending to a more aware portrayal of him at the moment.
I will forever recommend "Superman: Peace on Earth" (written by Paul Dini) for people who don't understand Superman. It's not a comic, it's an illustrated book with art by Alex Ross. It's got a good plot, it's satisfactorily in-character for us comic fans, and it addresses this issue about how much he can do. Thank god you got Scott on board though. A Superman video that actually pays attention to his stories is a rarity.
I think its a social thing. In the solitary confinement video you made a few years after this one, you describe the horrible ways that isolation can mentally harm a person. Superman is a person, and so the social isolation of always being Superman would mentally scar him like nobodys business, aside from the justice league, I guess.
actually superman is not just a super hero who kicks villains ass and handed them to the police ...he also uses his influence to deliver political and social commentary about the world in many conference and in the UN, ..........he didn't want to stop a war by force he wants the warring country's to stop not because he forces them to stop but because he wants them to stop by ther own......it doesn't mean that you are so powerfull doesn't mean you can save the the whole world just by yourself , you need the help & cooperetive ness of every people to make the world a better world..........and thats why superman uses himself to influence other people to be good and help each other ....... p.s: sorry for my bad english grammar but i hope you understand my point.......by the way i love your it so very informative ...:)
There is a moment in the (flawed) Red Son story where Superman explains running off all the time as "what would you do if you could hear people in danger?" It was a curse of his super hearing. I always liked that.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the idea that maybe sacrificing his off time, getting the chance to be the normal human being 'Clark Kent' he was raised as might classify as a point of 'marginal utility'. Sure he doesn't need the job for money, but he does need basic human contact and the opportunity to be a human, doing normal human things, every now and again, lest he lose all contract and context with the human world and go insane.
I thought the reason superman works at the daily planet so he can get information about where crimes were happening. Also think how much it would suck to have no life friends, family, or anything; he can't have a life superman. He has his own mental health to worry about.
I would recommend reading The Metropolitan Man, a Superman fanfiction written from the perspectives of Lois Lane and Lex Luture about Superman and why he's so inefficient. It's also (coincidentally) challenges the same notion that 'Superman is an existential threat' as Batman in Batman vs. Superman, except it's presented well.
Ooooh a crowdfunded superhero. I like that! Like, I want that to be an actual story. Make earning money an actual concern. Could lead to a lot of dilemmas like "My *power* could have saved you but my financial resources didn't suffice."
In Germany it would be a crime if you let the child drown under such circumstances. And I am very glad that moral libertarianism gets punished in this way.
+Philosophy Tube I think that crime exists in most of Europe, if not all of it. Not only a child, if anybody is in immediate danger to their life and you can save them without causing yourself or other further danger and would have been able to.
+Philosophy Tube You can get up to 1 year in prison. It's in the category of "gemeingefähliche Straftaten", with can be loosly translated to crimes posing a danger to public safety. You'll find things like drunk driving, arson, well poisoning and destruction of infrastucture like dams in the same category. I was surprised to find out you can also get thrown in prison for up to a year, if you bring alcohol to a rehab centre for a person sent there by the state. Another interesting topic related to crime would be the justification for limitation periods and their underlying understanding of identity in contrast to other positions.
Like many kids of my time I put on a homemade cape and jumped a small distance on to a soft yard. I, for one, had no idea of the serious questions involved.
I wonder if there's a consideration for the mental toll of being Superman. The mental labor of dividing your life from perpetual saviordom. I think that I would be interested to see you go back to this video considering your more recent work. I think the modern movie incarnation captures Spiderman in a very interesting way suggesting his outfit helps filter out stimuli and not become overburdened by his enhanced abilities. Superman can perceive life in a massively different way and has been brought up in a world that does not understand his perception and physicality. I wonder if Superman needs mental rest and common life allows him to tune out the constant stream of input. I figure it'd be something akin to Baby Driver. Baby uses his music to tune out the constant ringing.
My answer is that America has the most supervillains. That may be an out-of-universe explanation to a degree, but the canon as it's presented certainly upholds it. He feels perfectly happy going to take down serious criminals and supervillains in other countries and that happens a lot, but even though he could be there in a moment, it's just a lot easier to hear about issues when you're in the same country as them. And when you're an investigative journalist, which he tends to be more than just a reporter.
It's an open question whether Superman is actually very close to his limit all the time and needs to take breaks as Clark Kent because he would surely break down if he pushed himself much further - he's putting on a brave face to civilians, to his friends and coworkers, to Lois, even to the readers.
I would argue that Superman's mental health might require him to take a break from saving people as often as he would be physically able to do it. Superman having to break up domestic disputes or act as a first responder to accidents and seeing misery and death on that level all the time would take a toll. I would also agree with the argument mentioned in the video that because Superman will not always be here, that he can't do everything because eventually we would be without him and then we would be in trouble.
hey olly, you should read this comic called Irredeemable. it posits kind of in a roundabout way that the usefulness of the clark kent persona is psychological stability for superman.
Which are your favourite Superman stories? I can't seem to find any story that I like and features actual Superman (instead of a communist/powerless/alternate universe version of him). Anyway, I like the grounding theory because it keeps him sane. As far as I know Superman has a lot less physical needs, but he still needs friends, coworkers, family etc to keep perspective (and probably holidays too). This is not just to be humane towards him as a person and have him happy and motivated so he'll make good reasoning etc, but also to prevent him from losing perspective and not knowing what is good for people anymore because he doesn't connect with them, and in doing what he thinks is best might be actually making them unhappy, as many villains do. And that is why his identity has to remain secret. If it was public, he would be trated as a celebrity and not know what a normal person is like and how to help them. So basically, saving a few people is a lo better than saving a lot of people today and become a tyrant tomorrow (which is why he and Batman don't kill people [let's not talk about Man of Steel]) and also, the guy deserves a life.
I'd love to see stories of Clark hanging out with Clark's friends (not Kal-El's friends), indirectly asking them about problems that he has as Superman, and his friends giving him a fresh perspective that he woudln't have thought about because he's not human.
This is really interesting problem that I think has a lot of factors in it. One thing that I always find interesting about Singer is his proposition about decrease of personal liberty is regards to acting in the most utilitarian or most moral way possible. This would initially seem to suggest that Superman should give up all of his time as Clark Kent to save people. But this brings up many questions: How is "good" defined? Is Superman flying around saving the people of Metropolis actually the best way for him to spread the greatest good? Is pleasure gained from personal liberty that one has a factor in what is the greatest good? I think that the first question is super important. Are we measuring "good" in terms of happiness or in terms of overall lives saved? If it's measured in terms of overall happiness one would have to imagine the the happiness that Superman and the people around him gain from his personal life would be a factor in how to create the overall greater good. If that happiness is not a factor and the greatest good is measured more simply on how many lives he saves, is he really saving lives in the most efficient way possible? That is is it better for him to be working saving lives in Metropolis or somewhere else? More that 7.5 million children under the age of 18 die of poverty related illnesses every year, which is 3.5 million less than the population of Metropolis. Even assuming that everybody in Metropolis is killed, if he was fighting poverty it is possible that he could save more people that way that we would lose in Metropolis. It is also possible that Superman uses money from his job and donates it to charity, thus still efficiently using his tine as Clark Kent. There's not really anything suggesting that he does this, but there's also nothing that suggests that he doesn't. As far as the destruction of personal liberties goes I think that Michael Pollan has some interesting, and debatable responses to Singers ideas on this. Perhaps I am simply over analyzing this. But this was an awesome video!
I never really thought about this but I kind of agree with you. When you think about it superman is one of the few superheroes that can save people in the blink of an eye and have the power to prevent nuclear war and stuff like that yet he doesn't. I understand if he saved the world 24/7 is would get boring and people would start to wonder about his personal life but surely he has the power to zip in and out of saving people and living his normal life. Although when I think about it, he practically does that already just at a lower scale.
I think it's fine for SM to want to be happy. This reminds me of the sermon where Jesus says "The man who has two coats should give to the one who has none."
You've inspired a commentary article by me. Congrats. Proper credit shall be given. I will say this here, though. I have two Superman stories that may shed some light on Superman's mindset. One is #420 where Superman answers a kid's question as to why Superman doesn't stop war. He says that he can stop the war itself but as long as the root causes of war continue it wouldn't solve the actual problem. As for why he doesn't spend 24/7 rescuing people, even Superman has limits. One of my favorite Superman stories is DC Comics Presents #50, where Superman and Clark are separated into two people. (Long story.) Indeed Superman is losing touch with his humanity, running ragged stopping every little problem and you can see the fatigue setting in when he says things like "frankly, you Earth people are lucky to have me around at all". which Clark blamed on stress. Even Superman can't be everywhere at once so he goes where he's most needed, letting people who can solve the problem themselves do so. In fact I just thought of a third issue (Superman #352) where he's specifically kept from saving a particular party so they can do it for themselves, reminding themselves that while it's great to have Superman (and you know, every other superhero in the DC Universe) we can often save ourselves. I'm going to dwell on this a bit and come up with something good by next week's commentaries. Good video! I came in when Scott pointed his viewers here to this video and I liked it.
When you brought up spider-man getting a patreon I got lost in wondering how they would launder that money so that bad guys couldn't track the spending. I now have to rewind the video and watch it all over again.
THAT IS THE ONLY MORAL COMIC BOOK QUESTION I CAN'T ANSWER. I'LL COME BACK WHEN I GET THE ANSWER, IT'S THERE. THE HUMAN HEART CAN BE GOOD, AND SO CAN SUPERMAN. I KNOW IT
Aside from the psychological damage of not having a social life, there are stories that tackle why Superman doesn't outright save everyone all the time. Superman: Red Son has him becoming a benevolent dictator. The story where Superman meets with the guardians of the GL Corps raises the question of "if he does everything for everyone, does Earth begin to lose its self reliance?" Though, to be fair, he's still always skipping out on work to save people. If you can manage to find a copy or read it online, I wholeheartedly recommend the book, "Superman: Peace On Earth" in which the Man of Steel attempts to tackle world hunger.
I always thought superman found out who needed saving by working at the Daily Planet & dashed off whenever he knew someone needed saving...(just casually commenting, 4 years later...)
Have you read Superman? He's ALWAYS ditching work to run off and save someone. In any case the flaw in that reasoning is that both positive and negative duties are both required of responsible citizens. We have to not push the child into the pond AND try to help with we find a child in the pond. In Superman's case, he tries not to harm anyone, and tries to help who he can, although there will always be those he can't save. But let's say superman has the power to be everywhere at all times protecting everyone equally. Let's further assume that we all have exactly the same values across Earth.. so none of that icky moral relativism going on. Now we wake up.. but why expend the effort to get out of bed.. why can't Superman lift us out of bed. And why can't superman fix our breakfast so we can do something else more useful? In fact we're out of juice.. Superman please be a dear and get us more from the store please. You see where I'm going with this? Superman is relegated to a machine we use to improve our lives, and the morality of his actions loses all meaning. He becomes just an extension of our collective will.
Good point! Clark Kent's persona is best suited for Superman's morale and empathy with humans. He might need vacations and eventual retirement from superhero life for his mental health, to prevent job burnout. Sunbathing on a beach would nicely recharge a solar-powered man. Even if he were Superman 24/7, any human would have only a 1-10% chance of being rescued by him. However, he could fly back in time, like the Silver Age and Donner versions.
I've recently subscribed to your channel and I've been catching up on your backlog. And may i just say as a fellow green eyed man, you should totally use green more often in your videos because it makes your eyes pop like crazy. (I'm referring to around 2:29 when you use green lettering imposed over your video)
As Clark Kent, you could argue that he is saving people, but on a different level. As a journalist Clark works to spread knowledge and social equity and yes this isn't saving people's lives directly but it could improve somebody's life. This also ties into Superman as an example to society, as journalism and spreading knowledge to the people is super important
Thank you for having your Community Contributions turned on for your captions! As funny as, I'm sure, most students would find the name "Cock Kent" to be I'm pretty sure that the professor that requested this be shown for their deaf/hard of hearing students might be a little embarrassed.
Obviously you're talking about Superman as a thought exercise and not in terms of the stories, but it inspired an interesting thought regarding the philosophy of creating fiction (in comics, movies, or elsewhere). Fictional characters like Superman who are created with an inspirational goal are almost always going created along Rule Utilitarian lines, because there are no real acts their creators could perform through the fictional character, but there are real rules their creators could define/encourage through them. To whit, Grant Morrison the author can't stop a real-life run-away train with a Superman story, but he can use a Superman story to espouse a way of being, like in the final Silver Age Superman story, where he carves his final message to earth in the moon: "Do good to others and every man can be a superman".
I have an argument against the possibility of multiple universes concerning the other part of the collab and I was wondering if someone could please debunk it. My argument is stated as mentioned here: How could there be another possible world when another possible world has another kind of physics and laws of nature? So, if one world has laws of nature that are opposed to ours, how could a device to enter another universe work? The existence of the existing device wouldn't exist in that universe and therefore there wouldn't be any link between one and another universe whatsoever. And what if we were to change the laws of nature of the other universe? It would become like ours.
You might appreciate the Red Son alt-universe version of Superman, where he lands in the Soviet Union and ends up being superman full time, working as a state sponsored hero of the workers. That series also has my favourite version of Batman.
"With great power comes great responsibility" - I doubt that it refers to negative duties only, at least in the way it is used in comic book storylines.I also think that the revelation of his secret "human" life to the unsuspecting people would actually lead to a feeling of betrayal. Superman has obvious reasons for keeping his identity to himself when he is Clark - could one be that he would feel guilty if people knew who he was and how he was spending his time? ;-) Also the rule utilitarian interpretation does not make a lot of sense to me... what is it that Superman would show us? We cannot be "super"... if he was just a rolemodel, he wouldn't need the amount of powers he has. So I agree - he should do a lot more, but still maintain "some" human time to stay in touch with human needs and desires.
isn't superman able to move faster then light and so travel through time? my very short investigation said he is able to do that. so wouldn't he be able to stop every crime, safe every person in danger and still live his secret identity as klark kent?
I think I noticed a hole in the "people have no reason to suspect Superman has a secret identity" theory ...doesn't he regularly save Metropolis? moreso than most places? even though it's claimed he lives in the fortress of solitude?
I'm on team "humanity should do more for humanity" because some human communities have caused the scarcity and suffering of other communities for arbitrary reasons humanity is unwilling to discuss in a transparent manner.
I think Superman is doing a great job saving as many people as he does. Even though he is quite powerful, his emotions seem to be very similar, if not the same, to that of humans. With that being said, he needs time to spend with Lois and his family, as well as time to rest mentally. The overall marginal utility gained may be decreased sooner than mentioned in the video because of the deprivation of happiness of Superman. I do agree that we as humans should be doing all that we can to make the lives of others (aka the world) better, but that starts with ourselves. The example I always go to is the old person putting away groceries in a parking lot. If you are happy while walking by this scene, you are more likely to help the old person. If you are unhappy while walking by, you will be more inclined to stay on your path and work on yourself.
I think superman could, and should, do more. I also think I could/should do more but I am never going to hit the point of diminishing utility because I am not that good a person, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't.
Sorry, I'm a little late to the party here. I think Superman's job at the Daily Plantet does in fact help in his human identity. As has been pointed out, he works at a news paper. This fact alone has him involved in politics ans social issues. This may also assist in keeping him informed about such matters, for better decision making about whom needs saving most. That said, there is value in teaching by example, which I also agree is part of the Superman identity.
Maybe Peter Singer should read Injustice: Gods Among Us comic or play the game. This version of Superman revealed his identity and became a full time hero after accidentally killing Lois Lane. He goes around stopping wars, intervenes in politics, and virtually eliminates crime on Earth and establishes absolute power and control through his regime, the One Earth Government, taking like-minded super-heroes and villains as his generals with himself acting as High Councilor. Superman quote: "They should be scared. They should be too scared to press the button. They should be too scared to pull the trigger. They should be too scared to hurt each other." So yeah, I think maybe he needs his Clark Kent persona.
I think the importance of grounding Superman in humanity is that he _does_ have to make difficult decisions on who to support and who to defend against whom. Remembering that (like Doctor Who) Superman is an alien from outer space, and considering that most wealthy executives are considerable contributors to charity at the same time as wringing every penny they can from the less fortunates who need their products... If he didn't live the majority of his life as a _human_, he would probably start to wonder why these poor unfortunates don't just get off their respective arses and do something about their own situation. It's probably _also_ why his Clark Kent persona is meekly spoken and often downtrodden when, as Superman, he could probably invent a whole heap of futuristic stuff he found lying around his escape pod or described in his parents messages and be a Bruce Wayne / Richard Stark in his day-to-day alter-ego. That wouldn't teach _him_ what it's like to be one of "the little people". He needs to develop empathy. This is also an issue most charitable organisations have to deal with among their donors. Sooner or later, most of us suffer from "Compassion Fatigue". (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) If you spend too much time looking at and dealing with starving and / or anorexic children, a) you start to expect children to be half-starved and b) you have absolutely 0 tolerance or compassion for obese children... Who are probably suffering just as much as the starving ones.
Have you already done anything on the relationship of the law to social contract theory? It seems like a topic with lots of built-in questions outside of definitions.
Very beautiful episode. I think that we can look on superman not as a symbol, the savior of humanity, but as a human that also need social activities and kind of normal life. Thats why it may be that his "Marginal Utility" get to maximum after 3 hours of fighting crime. Any way very nice episode, really give you some think to think about, Like: I doing enough? When was the last time that i helped someone? Should i help? or maybe just care about myself And of course how much is enough? Thanks
+pauldhoff Exactly. The fact that he chooses to donate his time and energy is what makes him great. I think the whole child in pond was a bad comparison. A better comparison would be normal humans and charity. Child in pond is losing 1 minute in a really unusual situation to save a child's life. What he's proposing is hunting down people in trouble and helping everyone, all the time. No duty there, moral or otherwise. Which is why, when he does do it, he's awsome.
The explanation I had when I was a kid was that Superman needed his job at the Daily Planet to find out who needed saving, and where villains were, before it was even an issue. Now that he has "super hearing", he has no reason to be there, other than canon.
I may be mistaken, but isn't Superman a reporter so that he can have access to media information that will help him fight crime, and allow him to investigate without being an Guy in bright blue, and red tights. Some people are more likely to open up to the reporter then the large Superhero that may kick your ass.
Great video. As a comics fan I enjoy looking deeper into the meanings of characters actions. On a different topic, I was recently watching movies like V or Vendetta and Inception and was wondering, in you opinion, just how powerful is an idea? I believe, like Superman, it has limitless potential because of what it can become. What is your opinion?
Superman'Powers became so great over the decades that it became a problem to come up with any real conflict with him. He went from being a person with some extra abilities to being a God. That is why they had green Kryptonite, which makes him helpless when physically ill. And him losing his powers when he is in a solar system with a red sun, or when he is close to red Kryptonite. The romantic triangle of Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and Superman is a fairly standard one. Clark Kent is in love with Louise Lane, but she rejects him. She is in love with Superman, who seems to be uninterested. The one thing that makes this one different is that Clark Kent is actually the same person as superman. Superman does not want to put Lois Lane at risk by having a relationship with as himself, so he tries to be a wingman (so to speak) for his alter ego Clark Kent, hoping that she will fall in love with him instead. But because he plays Clark as the opposite of him, mild-mannered and timid, she doesn't. The whole thing does not make a lot of sense. How could Clark have a relationship with Lois without her finding out? Furthermore, how could they have sex with her when his body is immune to the most extreme sensations of heat and cold possible. If he tried, he would feel nothing, but might tear her apart trying too. Some of the later movies dealt with those themes. But meanwhile, the triangle provided a lot of fodder for conflicts and plot twits. That is why it was created, I suppose.
I thought Superman became Clark Kent so he could be (or at least act like a) human. If he wasn't Clark Kent, he might not be saving people in the same way.
I've always imagined a scenario in which Superman explores his god-like powers and does more to guide humanity to the future rather than just the day to day action. Who knows, maybe if I ever have the guts to become a writer and ingratiate myself in DC...
How do you evaluate the defined worth of an action. If superman spent all his time saving people and not living his life the way he wants to he has essentially scarified himself. None of his time will be spent doing the things that he wants. Surely there has to be some kind of balance. If a person saves one child from drowning in a pond they've scarified at most a couple of hours of their life which is a totally insignificant amount of time. But if they spend the rest of their life saving children from drowning in ponds they've used all they time up. From the perspective of the whole of humanity one life is actually pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of thing but from the perspective of that person that life is everything that ever was or will be. As a person has less time to do the things they want, at least from there perceptive, the value of that time increases. This is why there is a large difference in stopping one child from drowning to dedicating a life to something that while ultimately good is not what you want to do.
The big error here is the assumption that time spent as Clark is of less moral worth than time spent as Superman. Remember that Kent is a Pullitzer prize winning investigative journalist, and his stories can and do have a tremendous effect on the general good. An indication of the type of journalistic integrity he possesses is the fact that he left his job at the planet when it became more of a Daily Mail and less of a Telegraph.
+Nigel Bennington That's a cool point!
But what's to stop him from publishing the same writing as Superman?
+kujmous even tho superman is a "good guy" and a hero, he is not on the side of humans, if humanity went "bad" and "evil" he would stop them or take them down, because of this he has to pretend to be a human to write/publish storys that will be accepted, i dont think as many people would agree with him as superman, even tho what he stands for.
its a similar thing with bruce wayne and batman, he wouldnt be able to perform his life as bruce, if he dressed and behaved like batman.
@@Tyhros I know this is an old comment on an older video so feel free to ignore this.
Another argument one could make is that fame often comes with pressure and publicity. While Superman writing under his own name would catch attention just because he is who he is, it would also be a feeding ground for undue criticism, suspicion (whether real or fake) and possibly attempts at libel or slander against superman.
@Dick Thick'em How do you know his journalistic work doesn't save lives. Good journalists are essential for a free society to function properly.
There's a great SMBC comic where utilitarians convince Superman that most good he can do for society would be to pump a crank and generate electricity 24/7. Naturally because super strength, society rapidly progresses to post scarcity from all free energy at the cost of Superman becoming super bitter and going crazy.
I think that's a reasonable argument why superman needs to be "grounded" as Clark Kent. Superman's mental health is a necessary factor in order for him to do good. The best way to ensure superman has relatively normal mental health is to let him lead a relatively normal life on the side as Clark Kent.
+NickCybert haha just about to mention that comic :) and i saw your post.
I have heard similar arguments going along the line that:
Technically every human could allways give more of themselves in any give situation. Why do you do X when you could give Y instead. If everybody allways gave everything they could. Nobody would be able live their lives.
Every person superman save is good. But demanding superman to always save everyone would violate his basic rights. But maybe he is not considerd to have basic rights?
+Lockvir Tompson Moral obligations are by their nature fulfilled voluntarily. There's no such thing as a moral obligation violating one's rights.
+NickCybert It seems to me that that SMBC comic www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305 shows how superman's mental health is unnecessary in order for him to do good, seeing as he did a lot of good while simultaneously going crazy. As to having him go crazy being morally wrong, it seems to be worth it to have one man go crazy while everyone else in the world gets everything else they could want.
Zach Ashton I'm with you. Although I don't buy the premise of the comic; Superman could power California at the most.
Zach Ashton
You're right, I misremebered the comic and thought superman went *violently* crazy.
Anyways, to return to olly's video, I think we can rule out superman ushering in post scarcity. The crank is fictional, and probably not possible. So all we're worried about is regular do-gooding. For that, I think superman needs to be mentally sound since that kind of do-gooding needs sound judgement.
"Meddling when you don't need to is the essence of being a hero." ~All-Might
Boku no Hero Academia has an interesting take on this conundrum, or rather many different interesting takes. All-Might (BnH's version of Superman, although not quite as invincible) operated for years under the principles of saving as many people as possible, but also focusing his attention on the situations and 'villains' that required his strength the most. Besides just the heroic actions he took, he believed in the value of there being a "Symbol of Peace," someone who shows unwavering strength and fortitude against villainy as a preventative deterrent to violent crime.
Shigaraki, a main antagonist, was traumatized by being one of the people All-Might and the hero-centric society in general failed to save. He fell through the cracks and now he wants to tear down the entire establishment as he sees it as being based on false pretenses. Shigaraki believes All-Might's existence weakens society as a whole because people use him not as a model to aspire to but as an excuse to remain weak and passive.
Another fantastic villain called Stain simultaneously idolizes All-Might and sees him as a bastion of humanity's potential, but because very few professional heroes live up to that level of selflessness and bravery, he says they don't deserve to call themselves heroes and kills the ones who deems to be watering down the very concept of a hero.
It's fun stuff and a pretty fresh take on the action shonen as well as superhero genres.
I know this was posted a while ago, but there's another interesting aspect to All Might, Olly mentioned in the video that you should keep helping people until the amount of help you're giving outweighs what it is costing your physical and mental health and All Might in his weakened state all but dies because he dedicated arguably too much of himself to saving people. He constantly took detours to stop villains at the cost of his health and stamina (time in powered up form) even when they weren't the biggest threat or it seemed like other heroes could've handled it, and, while this did save people without a doubt, this sometimes left him helpless during times people needed him most.
Obviously there is no one correct answer to any of these situations, but this kind of thing is interesting to think about.
I can imagine it's stressful being Superman, and perhaps being "off duty" as Clark Kent is necessary for his emotional wellbeing. I mean, it must get to you having Zod plotting your death from the Phantom Zone, or Metallo lurking around, waiting to kill you with kryptonite, or a bald supergenius looking to destroy you.
Perhaps he's at the point of marginal utility as it is, and Clark Kent keeps him from ill effects of being Superman.
I'd imagine Superman would need things like socialization, relaxation, hobbies and whatever else. Being Superman 24/7 would probably result in him hitting burnout very quickly thus causing him to stop being Superman altogether or be less effective as Superman.
I'm in year 9 and I chose this as a stimulus for our philosophy club. Everybody enjoyed the video and it sparked lots of interesting questions. Thankyou for making this channel it has got me engaged with philosophy as well as being entertaining. Thankyou :-)
+Catherine Arthur Eaton No worries :)
A lot of this for Superman is more of a sanity issue- despite what is said in Kill Bill, Clark Kent is Clark Kent- Superman is the costume, Clark the journalist is a disguise, Clark the man is the actual person. So from his POV, he actually CAN'T be Superman 24/7- it would mean giving up family, friends, his own time etc., and would get to him psychologically. He might be incredibly powerful, but at heart is he not truly a god or anything, just a man with special abilities. Being Superman 24/7 would break him.
He's probably not a utilitarian. He seems much more categorical- for him, some things are just right and others are just wrong (he does actually OCCASIONALLY kill his villains and cause massive property destruction- Man of Steel did not make that up- but usually he felt he was forced to because his opponent was just that dangerous). For the most part he is portrayed as having a pretty rigid moral code and does not like to appeal to the Greater Good or Greater Happiness anything like that; it is sometimes used against him. Though like most people, he probably doesn't make any neat distinction in theory or practice.
I wonder if you could argue that his Clark Kent persona actually does as much or more good as does his Superman one. Clark Kent is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who usually DOES support social justice causes or work to expose corruption- it is one aspect of his conflict with Lex Luthor, who is too rich, connected, crafty and powerful to just arrest as Superman but who might be exposed as a murderous sociopath by a bit of dogged journalism.
And on the subject of Luthor, however much he dresses it up as honestly believing that Superman might be a threat, the truth almost always is that he, Luthor, is a selfish egomaniac who just doesn't like the idea of someone more powerful than him running around. There are SOME stories that suggest he thinks Superman is a threat, but he usually turns out to be a) lying, or b) self-delusional, and willing to kill hundreds to "expose" Superman, and really just driven by his own petty insecurities.
69 noice
My face was in this.
+NerdSync you failed, my day could have been better if you haven't written a "joke" that you have already have used before in another video, since you easily could have done so without sacrificing something comfortable significance.
_Did_ _I_ _miss_ _the_ _point_ _of_ _this_ _video?_
Acedia DeKay I've been writing this same thing for almost all my collabs.
+NerdSync don't mind the haters bud, you rock!! love nerdsync!!!
I just wanted to point out how easy it is, to demand others to do something, by misusing this moral philosophy in this video. And since I have noted your comment in other video collabs was it an ideal time to do so.
It was ment sarcastic, you just go on being you (you are doing a great job) ;-)
In Superman's case are there hundreds of people dying every second, without him being able to do anything about it. People just can't live forever.
I believe that Superman shouldn't spend time saving people from stuff like illness, unless it's a highly contagious plague, where he actually can do something good in a sufficient manner, or a sick loved one, that he don't want to lose.
NERDSYNC YOU ROCK
I would definitely read the Spider man crowd funding thing
Lex Luthor projects his own motivations onto Superman. "If I had Superman's powers, I wouldn't be as altruistic as he wants us to think he is, therefore his altruism is a sham."
Yep, Luthor's just a jealous egomaniac.
I think when discussing why Superman is sometimes Clark Kent it's worth noting that in the really early golden age issues he didn't have super hearing or sight that could see radiowaves. Therefore the best way to know about what crime is going on is to work at a newspaper.
Two of the best Superman stories ever created deal with this exact question: "Kingdom Come" and "Superman: Peace on Earth". In "Kingdom Come" Superman tries to reign in a new generation of ultra violent heroes by coming out of retirement and working to "fix" the new heroes by putting them in a high tech gulag. It results in a massive and terrifying super civil war that obliterates half of Kansas, killing millions, and forcing Superman to fight Shazam. "Superman: Peace on Earth" shows Superman trying to help the U.N end world hunger, but he can't due to human interference.
Funnily enough, despite all that power he still has limits.
Moral and political libertarians, at least in the libertarian capitalist sense, really are quite similar...
if this was interesting to you, read "The Metropolitan Man".
revisiting this video 7 years later to answer the question "why's he have his job?" with, well, his job is investigative journalism! that contributes to society in a way his powers can't, his powers are just the bonus to help him achieve that! the "truth" part of "fighting for truth and justice"
one of the first episodes of the animated series is him using his job as a reporter to track down Lexcorp's confidential arms dealing, and using his powers to stop them afterwards, then writing about it on the Bugle
Assuming that Superman as an intelligent being has emotional needs much like humans do such as companionship, social interaction, and a break from turning back time by flying around the world really fast one could argue that the point of marginal utility is his mental health. His mental health is a necessary part of him and his ability to preform heroic acts effectively (though I don't have research available to me personal experience says depression effects work ethic and ability to judge situations objectively). His time at Clark Kent allows Superman to interact with humans and form relationships with them as a normal person.
The question of whether Clark Kent is justifiable comes down to whether or not Superman could be effective in the long term if he wasn't grounded. It's impossible to know for sure-I imagine that question has been explored in at least three storylines which came to at least five conclusions between them. But there's another character I can think of who provides a possible example of what Superman could be without Clark Kent-Scion, from Worm.
Without spoiling too much: Scion has all of Superman's powers and then some, but he felt unfulfilled. One day, he started going around saving people basically because he was told it would be a good thing, and he did that 24/7 for decades. Going further would be big spoilers, but suffice to say that Scion probably would have been more helpful during the story's climax if he had been more grounded in humanity.
Self-care is important, even if you're a superhuman alien. (So is caring about your fellow humans, of course.)
I think superman has the Clark Kent persona so he can keep in touch with humanity and know what he is protecting.
I wouldn’t put it past the government to track down Peter Parker based on bank accounts and tax information, going off of the Patreon idea.
Ryan Borja doesn’t SHIELD already know his identity though? He could just ask them to clean his money.
Great video! Enjoying going back through some of your older content! I had a thought along the lines of what some have mentioned below. It's not necessarily the case that its a dichotomy between doing good things as Superman, and not doing them as Clarke Kent. I'd think Clark Kent spends at least some of the time as Clarke Kent helping people or doing other morally good things. Then, someone might respond, "well that's still bad because they could do more good if they spent more time as Superman". This is a argument similar to one I've heard against giving money to the homeless "that's bad, you could have given the money to a homeless charity and done more good". Leaving That discussion alone, that raises the question; is it morally bad to do something that (taken in isolation) is morally good, if it means that you don't do another morally good thing (that may have better consequences)?
Crowdfunded Spiderman reminds me of the crowdfunded D & D warlock idea, where various supernatural entities pay for the warlock to kill various things.
HOLD UP.
Superheroes could totally have patreons. Holy shit your friend is a genius.
I recommend the comic book anthology series Astro City by Kurt Busiek in relation to this video. The whole series is amazing, but the first few issues deal with a Superman-like character and the psychological stress he's under with the pressure of being too able to save people.
He tries to hold down a job and having some measure of a social life, but every crisis and emergency compels him to action. It's a really interesting character study of just the sort of situation a character like Superman must be in.
As is the whole series, which is a collection of short stories from the perspectives of heroes, villains and average citizens, and how they view and deal with daily life in a super poweres city. Good stuff.
I think it was moviebob who had the argument that batman should quit being a vigilante cince he could do a lot more in his position of power without the mask then running around in the night.
+Lockvir Tompson Hah, I know right? Bruce Wayne could probably do more good by just paying his taxes than being Batman.
Then again, why not both, so long as he targets gangs top-down as batman and bottom-up as Bruce? In good stories, they show him doing that, but in the majority they don't want to consider his flaws. There was a good recent arc in the comics where he was on a jury as Bruce because he didn't trust his judgement as batman. He argued against his own decisions as batman. Personally I much prefer superman, but at the very least the comics are tending to a more aware portrayal of him at the moment.
This collab between two of my favorite RUclipsrs just made my day
Originally he had unrivaled hearing ability, whenever he heard someone in peril he would stop, save them, and go back to being clark.
I will forever recommend "Superman: Peace on Earth" (written by Paul Dini) for people who don't understand Superman. It's not a comic, it's an illustrated book with art by Alex Ross. It's got a good plot, it's satisfactorily in-character for us comic fans, and it addresses this issue about how much he can do.
Thank god you got Scott on board though. A Superman video that actually pays attention to his stories is a rarity.
I love the idea of Spiderman getting a Patreon.
Olly, i helplessly miss the old opening song, when things are humble and casual
I think its a social thing. In the solitary confinement video you made a few years after this one, you describe the horrible ways that isolation can mentally harm a person. Superman is a person, and so the social isolation of always being Superman would mentally scar him like nobodys business, aside from the justice league, I guess.
Dude, how did I miss these collaborations? They're amazing!
actually superman is not just a super hero who kicks villains ass and handed them to the police ...he also uses his influence to deliver political and social commentary about the world in many conference and in the UN, ..........he didn't want to stop a war by force he wants the warring country's to stop not because he forces them to stop but because
he wants them to stop by ther own......it doesn't mean that you are so powerfull doesn't mean you can save the the whole world just by yourself , you need the help & cooperetive ness of every people to make the world a better world..........and thats why superman uses himself to influence other people to be good and help each other .......
p.s: sorry for my bad english grammar but i hope you understand my point.......by the way i love your it so very informative ...:)
This video reminded me a lot of Red Son, which was surprisingly good.
There is a moment in the (flawed) Red Son story where Superman explains running off all the time as "what would you do if you could hear people in danger?" It was a curse of his super hearing.
I always liked that.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the idea that maybe sacrificing his off time, getting the chance to be the normal human being 'Clark Kent' he was raised as might classify as a point of 'marginal utility'. Sure he doesn't need the job for money, but he does need basic human contact and the opportunity to be a human, doing normal human things, every now and again, lest he lose all contract and context with the human world and go insane.
I thought the reason superman works at the daily planet so he can get information about where crimes were happening. Also think how much it would suck to have no life friends, family, or anything; he can't have a life superman. He has his own mental health to worry about.
I would recommend reading The Metropolitan Man, a Superman fanfiction written from the perspectives of Lois Lane and Lex Luture about Superman and why he's so inefficient. It's also (coincidentally) challenges the same notion that 'Superman is an existential threat' as Batman in Batman vs. Superman, except it's presented well.
Ooooh a crowdfunded superhero. I like that! Like, I want that to be an actual story. Make earning money an actual concern. Could lead to a lot of dilemmas like "My *power* could have saved you but my financial resources didn't suffice."
In Germany it would be a crime if you let the child drown under such circumstances. And I am very glad that moral libertarianism gets punished in this way.
+lovingboarding Really? Interesting.
+lovingboarding Is there a place I could start for looking into this? It seems kind of amazing to me.
Philosophy Tube Yes, it's called "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung", translated to "denial of assistance".
+Philosophy Tube I think that crime exists in most of Europe, if not all of it. Not only a child, if anybody is in immediate danger to their life and you can save them without causing yourself or other further danger and would have been able to.
+Philosophy Tube You can get up to 1 year in prison. It's in the category of "gemeingefähliche Straftaten", with can be loosly translated to crimes posing a danger to public safety. You'll find things like drunk driving, arson, well poisoning and destruction of infrastucture like dams in the same category. I was surprised to find out you can also get thrown in prison for up to a year, if you bring alcohol to a rehab centre for a person sent there by the state.
Another interesting topic related to crime would be the justification for limitation periods and their underlying understanding of identity in contrast to other positions.
Like many kids of my time I put on a homemade cape and jumped a small distance on to a soft yard. I, for one, had no idea of the serious questions involved.
I wonder if there's a consideration for the mental toll of being Superman. The mental labor of dividing your life from perpetual saviordom. I think that I would be interested to see you go back to this video considering your more recent work.
I think the modern movie incarnation captures Spiderman in a very interesting way suggesting his outfit helps filter out stimuli and not become overburdened by his enhanced abilities. Superman can perceive life in a massively different way and has been brought up in a world that does not understand his perception and physicality. I wonder if Superman needs mental rest and common life allows him to tune out the constant stream of input. I figure it'd be something akin to Baby Driver. Baby uses his music to tune out the constant ringing.
i wonder why super man stays in first world countries you think he spend more time in 3rd world countries seems he whuld make the most good there
My answer is that America has the most supervillains. That may be an out-of-universe explanation to a degree, but the canon as it's presented certainly upholds it. He feels perfectly happy going to take down serious criminals and supervillains in other countries and that happens a lot, but even though he could be there in a moment, it's just a lot easier to hear about issues when you're in the same country as them. And when you're an investigative journalist, which he tends to be more than just a reporter.
This is one of my favorite videos thanks Olly!
It's an open question whether Superman is actually very close to his limit all the time and needs to take breaks as Clark Kent because he would surely break down if he pushed himself much further - he's putting on a brave face to civilians, to his friends and coworkers, to Lois, even to the readers.
I would love to see more collabs like this between you and nerdsync
I would argue that Superman's mental health might require him to take a break from saving people as often as he would be physically able to do it. Superman having to break up domestic disputes or act as a first responder to accidents and seeing misery and death on that level all the time would take a toll.
I would also agree with the argument mentioned in the video that because Superman will not always be here, that he can't do everything because eventually we would be without him and then we would be in trouble.
hey olly, you should read this comic called Irredeemable. it posits kind of in a roundabout way that the usefulness of the clark kent persona is psychological stability for superman.
In the comics Superman was taking part in wars. "The Dark Knight Returns" is a good example.
I would enjoy these previous comment reviews on your new videos!
Which are your favourite Superman stories? I can't seem to find any story that I like and features actual Superman (instead of a communist/powerless/alternate universe version of him).
Anyway, I like the grounding theory because it keeps him sane. As far as I know Superman has a lot less physical needs, but he still needs friends, coworkers, family etc to keep perspective (and probably holidays too). This is not just to be humane towards him as a person and have him happy and motivated so he'll make good reasoning etc, but also to prevent him from losing perspective and not knowing what is good for people anymore because he doesn't connect with them, and in doing what he thinks is best might be actually making them unhappy, as many villains do.
And that is why his identity has to remain secret. If it was public, he would be trated as a celebrity and not know what a normal person is like and how to help them.
So basically, saving a few people is a lo better than saving a lot of people today and become a tyrant tomorrow (which is why he and Batman don't kill people [let's not talk about Man of Steel]) and also, the guy deserves a life.
I'd love to see stories of Clark hanging out with Clark's friends (not Kal-El's friends), indirectly asking them about problems that he has as Superman, and his friends giving him a fresh perspective that he woudln't have thought about because he's not human.
This is really interesting problem that I think has a lot of factors in it. One thing that I always find interesting about Singer is his proposition about decrease of personal liberty is regards to acting in the most utilitarian or most moral way possible. This would initially seem to suggest that Superman should give up all of his time as Clark Kent to save people. But this brings up many questions: How is "good" defined? Is Superman flying around saving the people of Metropolis actually the best way for him to spread the greatest good? Is pleasure gained from personal liberty that one has a factor in what is the greatest good?
I think that the first question is super important. Are we measuring "good" in terms of happiness or in terms of overall lives saved? If it's measured in terms of overall happiness one would have to imagine the the happiness that Superman and the people around him gain from his personal life would be a factor in how to create the overall greater good. If that happiness is not a factor and the greatest good is measured more simply on how many lives he saves, is he really saving lives in the most efficient way possible? That is is it better for him to be working saving lives in Metropolis or somewhere else? More that 7.5 million children under the age of 18 die of poverty related illnesses every year, which is 3.5 million less than the population of Metropolis. Even assuming that everybody in Metropolis is killed, if he was fighting poverty it is possible that he could save more people that way that we would lose in Metropolis. It is also possible that Superman uses money from his job and donates it to charity, thus still efficiently using his tine as Clark Kent. There's not really anything suggesting that he does this, but there's also nothing that suggests that he doesn't.
As far as the destruction of personal liberties goes I think that Michael Pollan has some interesting, and debatable responses to Singers ideas on this. Perhaps I am simply over analyzing this. But this was an awesome video!
I never really thought about this but I kind of agree with you. When you think about it superman is one of the few superheroes that can save people in the blink of an eye and have the power to prevent nuclear war and stuff like that yet he doesn't. I understand if he saved the world 24/7 is would get boring and people would start to wonder about his personal life but surely he has the power to zip in and out of saving people and living his normal life. Although when I think about it, he practically does that already just at a lower scale.
I think it's fine for SM to want to be happy. This reminds me of the sermon where Jesus says "The man who has two coats should give to the one who has none."
I thought this would be discussing which people Superman should save, if he couldn't save everyone, but was still very entertained!
You've inspired a commentary article by me. Congrats. Proper credit shall be given. I will say this here, though. I have two Superman stories that may shed some light on Superman's mindset. One is #420 where Superman answers a kid's question as to why Superman doesn't stop war. He says that he can stop the war itself but as long as the root causes of war continue it wouldn't solve the actual problem.
As for why he doesn't spend 24/7 rescuing people, even Superman has limits. One of my favorite Superman stories is DC Comics Presents #50, where Superman and Clark are separated into two people. (Long story.) Indeed Superman is losing touch with his humanity, running ragged stopping every little problem and you can see the fatigue setting in when he says things like "frankly, you Earth people are lucky to have me around at all". which Clark blamed on stress. Even Superman can't be everywhere at once so he goes where he's most needed, letting people who can solve the problem themselves do so. In fact I just thought of a third issue (Superman #352) where he's specifically kept from saving a particular party so they can do it for themselves, reminding themselves that while it's great to have Superman (and you know, every other superhero in the DC Universe) we can often save ourselves. I'm going to dwell on this a bit and come up with something good by next week's commentaries. Good video! I came in when Scott pointed his viewers here to this video and I liked it.
When you brought up spider-man getting a patreon I got lost in wondering how they would launder that money so that bad guys couldn't track the spending. I now have to rewind the video and watch it all over again.
THAT IS THE ONLY MORAL COMIC BOOK QUESTION I CAN'T ANSWER. I'LL COME BACK WHEN I GET THE ANSWER, IT'S THERE. THE HUMAN HEART CAN BE GOOD, AND SO CAN SUPERMAN. I KNOW IT
Aside from the psychological damage of not having a social life, there are stories that tackle why Superman doesn't outright save everyone all the time. Superman: Red Son has him becoming a benevolent dictator. The story where Superman meets with the guardians of the GL Corps raises the question of "if he does everything for everyone, does Earth begin to lose its self reliance?"
Though, to be fair, he's still always skipping out on work to save people.
If you can manage to find a copy or read it online, I wholeheartedly recommend the book, "Superman: Peace On Earth" in which the Man of Steel attempts to tackle world hunger.
Could you do a video on architecture? I'm curious on what you'd have to say about it.
I always thought superman found out who needed saving by working at the Daily Planet & dashed off whenever he knew someone needed saving...(just casually commenting, 4 years later...)
Have you read Superman? He's ALWAYS ditching work to run off and save someone. In any case the flaw in that reasoning is that both positive and negative duties are both required of responsible citizens. We have to not push the child into the pond AND try to help with we find a child in the pond. In Superman's case, he tries not to harm anyone, and tries to help who he can, although there will always be those he can't save. But let's say superman has the power to be everywhere at all times protecting everyone equally. Let's further assume that we all have exactly the same values across Earth.. so none of that icky moral relativism going on. Now we wake up.. but why expend the effort to get out of bed.. why can't Superman lift us out of bed. And why can't superman fix our breakfast so we can do something else more useful? In fact we're out of juice.. Superman please be a dear and get us more from the store please. You see where I'm going with this? Superman is relegated to a machine we use to improve our lives, and the morality of his actions loses all meaning. He becomes just an extension of our collective will.
Good point! Clark Kent's persona is best suited for Superman's morale and empathy with humans. He might need vacations and eventual retirement from superhero life for his mental health, to prevent job burnout. Sunbathing on a beach would nicely recharge a solar-powered man. Even if he were Superman 24/7, any human would have only a 1-10% chance of being rescued by him. However, he could fly back in time, like the Silver Age and Donner versions.
MY TWO FAVS DOING COLLAB. AAAAAAAH!!!!!
I've recently subscribed to your channel and I've been catching up on your backlog. And may i just say as a fellow green eyed man, you should totally use green more often in your videos because it makes your eyes pop like crazy. (I'm referring to around 2:29 when you use green lettering imposed over your video)
"Superman Smashes the Klan" would be a great addition to this discussion
As Clark Kent, you could argue that he is saving people, but on a different level. As a journalist Clark works to spread knowledge and social equity and yes this isn't saving people's lives directly but it could improve somebody's life.
This also ties into Superman as an example to society, as journalism and spreading knowledge to the people is super important
Thank you for having your Community Contributions turned on for your captions!
As funny as, I'm sure, most students would find the name "Cock Kent" to be I'm pretty sure that the professor that requested this be shown for their deaf/hard of hearing students might be a little embarrassed.
Obviously you're talking about Superman as a thought exercise and not in terms of the stories, but it inspired an interesting thought regarding the philosophy of creating fiction (in comics, movies, or elsewhere). Fictional characters like Superman who are created with an inspirational goal are almost always going created along Rule Utilitarian lines, because there are no real acts their creators could perform through the fictional character, but there are real rules their creators could define/encourage through them.
To whit, Grant Morrison the author can't stop a real-life run-away train with a Superman story, but he can use a Superman story to espouse a way of being, like in the final Silver Age Superman story, where he carves his final message to earth in the moon: "Do good to others and every man can be a superman".
I have an argument against the possibility of multiple universes concerning the other part of the collab and I was wondering if someone could please debunk it. My argument is stated as mentioned here: How could there be another possible world when another possible world has another kind of physics and laws of nature? So, if one world has laws of nature that are opposed to ours, how could a device to enter another universe work? The existence of the existing device wouldn't exist in that universe and therefore there wouldn't be any link between one and another universe whatsoever. And what if we were to change the laws of nature of the other universe? It would become like ours.
It's fuckin hilarius to hear Olly say what he says in 5:22 and I'm dying in 5:35, we need goddamn sups right now
You might appreciate the Red Son alt-universe version of Superman, where he lands in the Soviet Union and ends up being superman full time, working as a state sponsored hero of the workers. That series also has my favourite version of Batman.
*alt version of SUPERMAN where he lands in the Soviet Union (instead of the US).
@@mariebourgot4949 Yeah, sorry. I'm just excited about Russian Anarchist Batman. :p
"With great power comes great responsibility" - I doubt that it refers to negative duties only, at least in the way it is used in comic book storylines.I also think that the revelation of his secret "human" life to the unsuspecting people would actually lead to a feeling of betrayal. Superman has obvious reasons for keeping his identity to himself when he is Clark - could one be that he would feel guilty if people knew who he was and how he was spending his time? ;-)
Also the rule utilitarian interpretation does not make a lot of sense to me... what is it that Superman would show us? We cannot be "super"... if he was just a rolemodel, he wouldn't need the amount of powers he has.
So I agree - he should do a lot more, but still maintain "some" human time to stay in touch with human needs and desires.
Superman would go literally nuts if he did it 24/7...and then we'd all be fucked.
isn't superman able to move faster then light and so travel through time? my very short investigation said he is able to do that.
so wouldn't he be able to stop every crime, safe every person in danger and still live his secret identity as klark kent?
I think I noticed a hole in the "people have no reason to suspect Superman has a secret identity" theory
...doesn't he regularly save Metropolis? moreso than most places? even though it's claimed he lives in the fortress of solitude?
I'm on team "humanity should do more for humanity" because some human communities have caused the scarcity and suffering of other communities for arbitrary reasons humanity is unwilling to discuss in a transparent manner.
What about the similar moral question raised in Watchmen with Dr Manthattan and the loss of ones humanity?
I think Superman is doing a great job saving as many people as he does. Even though he is quite powerful, his emotions seem to be very similar, if not the same, to that of humans. With that being said, he needs time to spend with Lois and his family, as well as time to rest mentally. The overall marginal utility gained may be decreased sooner than mentioned in the video because of the deprivation of happiness of Superman.
I do agree that we as humans should be doing all that we can to make the lives of others (aka the world) better, but that starts with ourselves. The example I always go to is the old person putting away groceries in a parking lot. If you are happy while walking by this scene, you are more likely to help the old person. If you are unhappy while walking by, you will be more inclined to stay on your path and work on yourself.
I've thought about this a lot.
I think superman could, and should, do more. I also think I could/should do more but I am never going to hit the point of diminishing utility because I am not that good a person, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't.
Sorry, I'm a little late to the party here. I think Superman's job at the Daily Plantet does in fact help in his human identity. As has been pointed out, he works at a news paper. This fact alone has him involved in politics ans social issues. This may also assist in keeping him informed about such matters, for better decision making about whom needs saving most. That said, there is value in teaching by example, which I also agree is part of the Superman identity.
Maybe Peter Singer should read Injustice: Gods Among Us comic or play the game. This version of Superman revealed his identity and became a full time hero after accidentally killing Lois Lane. He goes around stopping wars, intervenes in politics, and virtually eliminates crime on Earth and establishes absolute power and control through his regime, the One Earth Government, taking like-minded super-heroes and villains as his generals with himself acting as High Councilor.
Superman quote: "They should be scared. They should be too scared to press the button. They should be too scared to pull the trigger. They should be too scared to hurt each other."
So yeah, I think maybe he needs his Clark Kent persona.
I think the importance of grounding Superman in humanity is that he _does_ have to make difficult decisions on who to support and who to defend against whom. Remembering that (like Doctor Who) Superman is an alien from outer space, and considering that most wealthy executives are considerable contributors to charity at the same time as wringing every penny they can from the less fortunates who need their products... If he didn't live the majority of his life as a _human_, he would probably start to wonder why these poor unfortunates don't just get off their respective arses and do something about their own situation.
It's probably _also_ why his Clark Kent persona is meekly spoken and often downtrodden when, as Superman, he could probably invent a whole heap of futuristic stuff he found lying around his escape pod or described in his parents messages and be a Bruce Wayne / Richard Stark in his day-to-day alter-ego. That wouldn't teach _him_ what it's like to be one of "the little people". He needs to develop empathy.
This is also an issue most charitable organisations have to deal with among their donors. Sooner or later, most of us suffer from "Compassion Fatigue". (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) If you spend too much time looking at and dealing with starving and / or anorexic children, a) you start to expect children to be half-starved and b) you have absolutely 0 tolerance or compassion for obese children... Who are probably suffering just as much as the starving ones.
Have you already done anything on the relationship of the law to social contract theory? It seems like a topic with lots of built-in questions outside of definitions.
Very beautiful episode.
I think that we can look on superman not as a symbol, the savior of humanity, but as a human that also need social activities and kind of normal life.
Thats why it may be that his "Marginal Utility" get to maximum after 3 hours of fighting crime.
Any way very nice episode, really give you some think to think about, Like:
I doing enough?
When was the last time that i helped someone?
Should i help? or maybe just care about myself
And of course how much is enough?
Thanks
studying singer at school at the moment. love the vidios thanks.
Superman has no duty to save anyone, that is one of the reasons I like him, let alone he can rule but has no needed too. Paul
+pauldhoff Exactly. The fact that he chooses to donate his time and energy is what makes him great. I think the whole child in pond was a bad comparison. A better comparison would be normal humans and charity. Child in pond is losing 1 minute in a really unusual situation to save a child's life. What he's proposing is hunting down people in trouble and helping everyone, all the time. No duty there, moral or otherwise. Which is why, when he does do it, he's awsome.
dudes dudes dudes. This was one super collab xD
The explanation I had when I was a kid was that Superman needed his job at the Daily Planet to find out who needed saving, and where villains were, before it was even an issue. Now that he has "super hearing", he has no reason to be there, other than canon.
I may be mistaken, but isn't Superman a reporter so that he can have access to media information that will help him fight crime, and allow him to investigate without being an Guy in bright blue, and red tights. Some people are more likely to open up to the reporter then the large Superhero that may kick your ass.
i really wanna see a video of Deleuzian philosophies.
Great video. As a comics fan I enjoy looking deeper into the meanings of characters actions. On a different topic, I was recently watching movies like V or Vendetta and Inception and was wondering, in you opinion, just how powerful is an idea? I believe, like Superman, it has limitless potential because of what it can become. What is your opinion?
Superman'Powers became so great over the decades that it became a problem to come up with any real conflict with him. He went from being a person with some extra abilities to being a God. That is why they had green Kryptonite, which makes him helpless when physically ill. And him losing his powers when he is in a solar system with a red sun, or when he is close to red Kryptonite.
The romantic triangle of Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and Superman is a fairly standard one. Clark Kent is in love with Louise Lane, but she rejects him. She is in love with Superman, who seems to be uninterested. The one thing that makes this one different is that Clark Kent is actually the same person as superman. Superman does not want to put Lois Lane at risk by having a relationship with as himself, so he tries to be a wingman (so to speak) for his alter ego Clark Kent, hoping that she will fall in love with him instead. But because he plays Clark as the opposite of him, mild-mannered and timid, she doesn't.
The whole thing does not make a lot of sense. How could Clark have a relationship with Lois without her finding out? Furthermore, how could they have sex with her when his body is immune to the most extreme sensations of heat and cold possible. If he tried, he would feel nothing, but might tear her apart trying too.
Some of the later movies dealt with those themes. But meanwhile, the triangle provided a lot of fodder for conflicts and plot twits. That is why it was created, I suppose.
I thought Superman became Clark Kent so he could be (or at least act like a) human. If he wasn't Clark Kent, he might not be saving people in the same way.
LMAO If Spiderman got a Patreon page I would fund the hell out of that!
Awesome vid and I have so many comments I could give about it...
But that bow tie... I want one naow!
I found this through NerdSync. Instant subscriber :)
+Richard Farrell Welcome to the little community!
I've always imagined a scenario in which Superman explores his god-like powers and does more to guide humanity to the future rather than just the day to day action.
Who knows, maybe if I ever have the guts to become a writer and ingratiate myself in DC...
so what Singer says is "with great power comes great responsibility"?
How do you evaluate the defined worth of an action. If superman spent all his time saving people and not living his life the way he wants to he has essentially scarified himself. None of his time will be spent doing the things that he wants. Surely there has to be some kind of balance.
If a person saves one child from drowning in a pond they've scarified at most a couple of hours of their life which is a totally insignificant amount of time. But if they spend the rest of their life saving children from drowning in ponds they've used all they time up. From the perspective of the whole of humanity one life is actually pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of thing but from the perspective of that person that life is everything that ever was or will be. As a person has less time to do the things they want, at least from there perceptive, the value of that time increases. This is why there is a large difference in stopping one child from drowning to dedicating a life to something that while ultimately good is not what you want to do.