Give Ms. Liberty a Break

[Chris24601]

51 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I think she was too busy running a sex trafficking cult.

That. Was unfortunate. Basically killed all rewatch value the series had (knowing what became of Product Placement Pete’s actor didn’t help the early seasons either).

 

On a related note though, and in relation to the dislike of Superman for certain “moral but not ethical” things by the poster you were replying to, it does highlight... which VERSION of Superman do they mean?

 

Golden Age is not Silver Age is not Post-Crisis is not New52 is not Rebirth is not Christopher Reeve films is not Diniverse is not Lois & Clark is not Smallville is not DCEU is not Arrowverse Superman.

 

I doubt that other than the most basic premises there’s anything consistent enough to complain about as a defining trait... not even the “love triangle for two” which all modern versions since Smallville have abandoned, with Lois finding out from either before the start (DCEU and Smallville) to Clark revealing the secret within months (Arrowverse and current comics) is consistent between versions.

 

At this point trying to pin a particular character flaw on Superman is like trying to ascribe one to Robin Hood. At best, you can critique one particular interpretation.

[Display Name]

On 2/29/2020 at 3:42 PM, Solarverse said:

You don't read comics, do you? And @VileTerror, you must either be trying to troll me, since you follow me everywhere leaving a confused face on my posts, or...you are simply one confused individual and smoke tons of pot. My posts aren't that confusing, dude.

Vile does the same to me.

[Solarverse]

2 minutes ago, Display Name said:

Vile does the same to me.

I don't care if somebody gives the confused face, but honestly, it's only a tool to troll with unless you quote and say why it confuses you. I can't believe creating the confused face was even thought to be a good idea. It's bad taste. 

[Display Name]

On 3/3/2020 at 11:40 PM, Heraclea said:

Batman has been the victim of bad writing ever since Frank Miller got a hold of him and turned him from the World's Greatest Detective to Wolverine with gadgets.  Batman needs to get his Adam West back, is all. 

I wish I could double-like this.  I grew up with Batman and in the 70s read some Batman issues that (to me) seemed brilliant!  It was like a detective novel in comic book form!  It was even called "Detective Comics!"

[_NOPE_]

Luckily @Solarverse, the confused face, along with the Sad face, don't affect your "forum karma" in a negative way. In fact, NONE of the reactions do. So, I think they might as well add a mad one as well, since they are all superficial. Don't like it when people give you those faces? Add them to your ignore list:

 

 

[Rathulfr]

On 3/4/2020 at 11:20 AM, Chris24601 said:

This is proof of "different strokes for different folks."

 

Superman and Captain America are among my favorite DC/Marvel heroes precisely because of their strong moral stands and being paragons meant for others to aspire to... with pre-Flashpoint Superboy (+Wonder Girl and Krypto; BFF's Tim and Bart as third and fourth) being probably my favorite DC/Marvel characters ever.

 

Of the rest only Steel as a guy inspired to heroism by Superman had any resonance for me. Cyborg and Eradicator even before their villain reveals were pure 90's Dork Age schlock, specifically created by the writing team to lampoon fanboy ideas of how to make Superman "better" (with each one save Steel actually falling short morally in some critical way and Steel's failure simply being that human tech just couldn't actually compete well with Kryptonian physiology).

 

Basically, the entire story arc of death and return was a big THIS IS WHY THE REAL SUPERMAN IS IMPORTANT!!! directed at the fans (and it worked, sales after the arc were notably stronger for the Superman titles, with the c. 2000 back to basics revamp that focused on strong storytelling using the classic characters being the next time his sales strengthened considerably).

 

So no... if they're going to bring Statesman back it needs to be the REAL Statesman or its missing the point.

 

That said, I don't think they should bring him back mainly because YOU are supposed to be the main character in City of Heroes universe and, as ham-handed as they were with it, they set up States death as a "finally he can rest" event rather than as something that was a tragedy. Yanking him out of the afterlife with his beloved wife and daughter (who had lived a full life of 72 years before she died) would actually be a punishment for him at this stage. rather than some grand return.

 

Despite surface similarities to Superman (actually he's closer to a Captain Marvel/Shazam expy with his powered by the gods and lightning), he's actually much closer to the pathos of MCU Steve Rogers as a man stuck out of his time. He's a very old man in a young body whose lost virtually all of his formative friends to old age, but felt too duty-bound to just give up because he thought the world depended on him (the default flaw of every Marcus Cole) and the realization that the world will keep spinning without him is actually a great relief and why when you find him dead he has a small smile on his face.

 

Let the old man rest and be happy in the afterlife that is confirmed to exist in the CoH Universe; its time for new heroes (your own) to rise in his place.

QFT. +1

[Solarverse]

1 hour ago, The Philotic Knight said:

Luckily @Solarverse, the confused face, along with the Sad face, don't affect your "forum karma" in a negative way. In fact, NONE of the reactions do. So, I think they might as well add a mad one as well, since they are all superficial. Don't like it when people give you those faces? Add them to your ignore list:

 

 

I hear you, Knight. However, ignoring somebody does not prevent them from trolling. I have never found ignoring somebody to be the answer. Plus, I have a thicker skin than that. I am just calling the confused face out for what it is; a tool perfect for trolling somebody.

[Zepp]

13 hours ago, Infinitum said:

I think she was too busy running a sex trafficking cult.

I actually started watching after she was caught for that. So from season 1 I was like, damn your best friend is a sex cult leader and your mom played the same character as your love interest? Damn this is twisted.

[Zepp]

On 3/6/2020 at 1:29 AM, Chris24601 said:

On a related note though, and in relation to the dislike of Superman for certain “moral but not ethical” things by the poster you were replying to, it does highlight... which VERSION of Superman do they mean?

 

Golden Age is not Silver Age is not Post-Crisis is not New52 is not Rebirth is not Christopher Reeve films is not Diniverse is not Lois & Clark is not Smallville is not DCEU is not Arrowverse Superman.

Actually the radio version of Superman was probably the best... That being said, I find all versions suffer from placing morality above ethics... that being said, at least the radio version wasn't daft...

[ShardWarrior]

On 3/3/2020 at 11:38 PM, Heraclea said:

My vote is to have Heraclea's arch-villain nemesis, Mold Wall, to be reformed and be the Atlas Park trainer. 

This might be a fun idea as a prize for one of the official Homecoming sponsored costume contests.  The winner gets to replace Miss Liberty for a month.  I wonder how difficult that is to do code-wise?  Hmmm......

Edited March 6, 2020 by ShardWarrior

[Chris24601]

25 minutes ago, Zepp said:

Actually the radio version of Superman was probably the best... That being said, I find all versions suffer from placing morality above ethics... that being said, at least the radio version wasn't daft...

Not sure I quite get your distinction on morality vs. ethics. The terms are generally considered synonymous (even by philosophers of ethics).

 

For that matter, in the few places that DO make such a distinction, morality is almost invariably held to be a higher ideal than ethics (with morality positioned as right vs. wrong while ethics is lawful vs. unlawful) so I don’t quite get why Superman placing a higher ideal above a lesser one would be regarded as a negative thing.

 

If I’m going to have a de facto physical god as a hero in a setting I’d much rather have one who puts doing the right thing over following the law because laws can be unjust and even evil.

 

Returning runaway slaves in the Antebellum South was the law. I’ll ALWAYS side with the hero who says “I’m helping these slaves escape because its the right thing to do” over one who says “I am ethically bound to follow the law and return these human beings to their enslavement.”

 

That second guy is a villain using unjust laws as an excuse for his actions. Superman AND Captain America (and any hero of mine) would punch that second guy in the face and rescue the slaves from him.

 

Superman putting morality ahead of ethics sounds more like a feature than a bug to me.

[Zepp]

Morality is an internalized sense of right or wrong imbued by societal norms in one's youth. Ethics is the rational deduction of right or wrong determined through rational principles. Moral relativism is a clear example of this distinction, moral relativism is the relegation of ethical behavior as being determined by morality. It is also the excuse used for all manner of assault on civil liberties of minorities. Something being lawful or unlawful is related to the ethical theory of legalism, which is a fairly flawed system - but not as flawed as morality / moral relativism.
 

1 hour ago, Chris24601 said:

Returning runaway slaves in the Antebellum South was the law. I’ll ALWAYS side with the hero who says “I’m helping these slaves escape because its the right thing to do” over one who says “I am ethically bound to follow the law and return these human beings to their enslavement.”

 

Therefore, you can see that returning slaves based on either legalism or morality would be the "right" thing to do, but it is completely unethical. It is morally right, because someone from that period would have grown up with beliefs of that social order. This means that they would feel a moral obligation to return runaway slaves. It is only through ethical consideration that one can break down the traps of morality and law to find the actual right thing to do.

 

Superman, because of the time he was developed, would help the runaway slaves. However, a Superman or Captain America (remember, the United States of America became a country after fighting a war against the UK following the Somerset decision) had they been developed in the period of slavery would have felt a moral obligation to protect the rights of the slave owners.

That is why morality is unethical.

[Chris24601]

Okay, the issue is you’re using morality vs. ethics (and the term moral relativism) in a 180 degree opposite way from any I’ve ever heard used.

 

Moral relativism isn’t “the relegation of ethical behavior as being determined by morality.” It is the declaration that all moralities are equal because they must be judged by the ethics of the culture in which they are found.

 

Moral relativism says its wrong, for example, to condemn groups which employ female genital mutilation because such actions are seen as good by their culture (note that things like that, and it’s logically inconsistent premise that all forms of morality are equal... except that moral relativism is superior... is why moral relativism is a load of garbage).

 

Likewise, in the US legal system, ethics refers entirely to following the proper laws and procedures, not whether a certain action is morally right or wrong. The Ethical decision in the US legal system is to follow the law (i.e. return the slaves) regardless of whether the outcome is morally right.

 

Something just occurred to me... your reference to internal British politics around the time of the US Revolution leads me to ask... are you American?

 

I ask because your definitions of ethics vs. morals seem entirely out of phase with how they are used in the United States and that perhaps this where our mutual confusion comes in.

 

My studies in America either do not distinguish morals from ethics (i.e. they’re synonymns for the same concepts) or, if they do distinguish them, describe ethics as socially/state determined right and wrong while morality is individually judged right and wrong. Likewise, the definition of Moral Relativism I used above is the American understanding of the philosophy.

 

However, if you’re not American then your definitions of ethics and morality might be a bit different just as chips, biscuits and football are different for Americans vs. British.

 

Americans in general skew towards personal liberty over social consensus when it comes to judging right from wrong and thus, generally regard “morality” (i.e. personal judgement) as superior to ethics (i.e. social judgment).

 

Likewise, while Superman has always adapted to the times, he’s fundamentally the creation of two Jewish immigrant boys living in pre-WW2 America’s industrialized North and started out fighting for the rights of the little guy against exploitation by the establishment.

 

If anything, were Superman to have been created in the pre-Civil War era (but still created by immigrants in the industrial North c. 1858) he’d most likely have been an Abolitionist symbol against the evils of slavery and personally opposed to it (what you seem to regard as an ethical decision to oppose it, but what Americans would call a moral choice... again, language drift may be involved).

 

 

[LordXenophon]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2020 at 9:11 AM, BrandX said:

If you were going to move Ms Liberty, wouldn't the best replacement be Back Alley Brawler, who can say, "I'll meet you in Atlas!" when you leave Galaxy Tutorial?

You could say the same for Coyote.

[Player2]

On 3/6/2020 at 3:29 PM, Zepp said:

Superman, because of the time he was developed, would help the runaway slaves. However, a Superman or Captain America (remember, the United States of America became a country after fighting a war against the UK following the Somerset decision) had they been developed in the period of slavery would have felt a moral obligation to protect the rights of the slave owners.

Captain America FOR slavery?

I'm sorry, but your reasoning of the situation may make sense to you but I simply cannot see the character being developed that way under any circumstances.  Captain America is a guy who embodies the ideals of liberty for everyone, not the laws of the land at the time.  It's why the man behind the mask was separated from the name a couple of times, because he's not a government stooge who follows the law of the country he represents.  He stands with the law when it benefits others, but will challenge it when it oppresses people --as was evidenced with Marvel's first Civil War when he opposed government registration of superhumans because it would restrict personal freedoms.

 

Ethics, as I understand it, refers to right and wrong as determined by rules (or laws) of  a group.  Morals would be the individual's personal sense of right and wrong, whether those beliefs are formed from religion, ethical concerns, or just personal experiences.  Steve Rogers grew up as the scrawny kid who wanted to help others and when it came to war, wanted to do his part to help others despite being physically ill-equipped to do so.  To suggest that he would be different if developed in a different period is basically saying "if he were a different character he would be a different character,"

[Zepp]

For clarity sake, the reference to Somerset is a reference to the cause of the war for American independence wherein a Virginia slave owner tried to use the British government to enforce his rights of ownership. This, followed by a decrease in tea tariffs to curtail smuggling were the primary causes of that war.

@Chris24601 the definition you offer for moral relativism does not differ from mine, I simply accept that morality is an unethical conceptualization of right and wrong determined by the culture you group in.

 

Also, legalism is a specific ethical theory and is not mainstream in ethical thought. Your concept of ethics v morality seems to be a difference in attribution rather than a substantive difference. Either that or you are considering morality as a either a generic or god-bestowed trait that exists a priori. Either way, you seem to be saying that morality is the internalized system for judging right and wrong based on the external cultural context whereas ethics is the externalized system for judging right and wrong based on the external cultural context. Both systems seem to fall into the trap of moral relativism.

 

It is not a matter of linguistic drift, it is perhaps that I have studied the differences between morality and ethics more. Again, the definitions commonly used for the two terms are:

morality is a set of internalized ideas of right and wrong developed during early adolescence based on social context

ethics is a determination of right and wrong based on rational principles

 

So if you get that ick feeling in your stomach, that is morality. If you think about a situation, that is ethics.

 

1 hour ago, Player2 said:

To suggest that he would be different if developed in a different period is basically saying "if he were a different character he would be a different character,"

 

Almost what I am saying. I am saying that because Cap is moral and not ethical, he would be a different character if he were developed in a different social system. If he were an ethical character, he would not change.

 

 

Case in point: Marcus Cole.
Statesman - Reichsman - Tyrant... All these are substantively the same highly moral character. The only difference is the cultural context they grew up in. If Marcus Cole had been ethical rather than moral, he wouldn't be a villain two thirds of the time...

[Player2]

Captain America would be Captain America no matter what.  His personal morals wouldn't change if he were were developed as a Civil War era character, for example, just some of the details of his background.  He would still be the champion of personal liberty and fight to liberate slaves even though it was legal to own them in the South.  If he were developed five hundred years earlier, he wouldn't be Captain America since America doesn't exist, but if they were making an alternate reality version in an earlier time then he would still be a heroic champion and not just some soldier who killed at the command of his superiors.

 

For example, if he were created in a reality where knights and monsters roamed a fantasy European landscape, he'd be Captain Avalon and still fight for the same kind of beliefs but they would have been shaped through different events.  Ethics change with society and time.  If Captain America were the ethical hero, he'd return slaves in the civil war era.  If he were a knight, he'd blindly obey his king over his own moral beliefs if he were ordered to kill someone.  Ethics are defined by by time and place as much as morals do, but ethics define characters by the rules whereas morals can be shaped by many factors (including ethics), but are unique to the individual.

 

I can't subscribe to your idea of ethics vs morals making Captain America the guy who would return slaves to their owners.  I see ethics and morals pretty much the opposite of the way you do.

 

[Noyjitat]

On 2/29/2020 at 3:02 PM, Player2 said:

I like Statesman dead.  I hate when heroes die and get resurrected... cheapens the whole death thing.

 

He and sister psyche had stupid deaths from a nobody Darrin Wade in a poorly written story arc and If anyone was to kill states it should have been recluse. Its a shame they retconned states and psyche out of the game while still keeping other stories in place that occur long before they died just to get rid of Jack Emmerts characters... Personally I think both of them should be back in IP with the classic tfs, Give ms liberty her own like penelope yin and put penelope yin in another zone besides faultline.

[Zepp]

Just for the record. It would never be ethical to return slaves to the people who claim to be their masters. Ethics are based on reason, and reason does not change.

[LordXenophon]

Some of you are also forgetting that Captain America's creators were not from the South. They were from New York.

[Replacement]

Tangent about Captain America re: slavery is missing the point (he says, in a thread about Ms. Liberty's coordinate superposition). instead reframe it "as if Captain America was written pre-civil War, by someone who didn't think slavery was wrong." 

Essentially, the version you are trying to defend isn't the subject Zepp intended (I think) - every version you've read was written by someone who was, obviously, anti-slavery.

 

I'm not qualified to talk about morality vs ethics but I will mention the standard uses of both seem detached from law, largely. It's amoral to lie to someone, it's unethical to sleep with your boss, but it's against the law to steal.

 

Just going by connotation alone, the standard uses seem to define morals as upbringing, while ethics has more to do with the zeitgeist (cultural identify), with microcosms of it in every company  - example: nepotism is typically seen as unethical but not illegal. But some companies instead take pride in only hiring people vetted by existing employees, which leads to rampant nepotism.

 

So uh... Yeah, give BAB a promotion. 

 

[Player2]

5 hours ago, Replacement said:

So uh... Yeah, give BAB a promotion. 

 

Way to put things back on the rails.  😎

[Dreamboat]

On 3/9/2020 at 2:54 PM, LordXenophon said:

You could say the same for Coyote.

This! I want to see more of that guy. He looks cool! Put him on the pedestal!

[Player2]

7 hours ago, Dreamboat said:

This! I want to see more of that guy. He looks cool! Put him on the pedestal!

I could see that.

[Replacement]

Nah.  Ms. Liberty stays in AP -- there are quests sending you to talk to her.  Put someone else in her place in Fort Trident.