Should Superheroes Kill?

*Originally published on 12/2/09



While superheroes had no problem offing Nazis back in World War II, most superheroes nowadays have taken an oath never to take a human life. Characters like Spider-Man and Superman, even "grim and gritty" anti-heroes like Daredevil and Batman refuse to cross that line. The one major exception to the rule is Frank Castle, aka The Punisher, who has no qualms about killing criminals.

At first glance, it seems like an obvious answer, no, they shouldn't kill. There are plenty of strong arguments to be made against killing criminals. The first is that it makes them no better than the people they claim to fight. Another point to consider is that almost all of these costumed heroes are vigilantes. The fact that they are willing to co-operate with police and work along side the law as opposed to above it is probably one of the few reasons that they aren't being pursued. Killing someone, even a super-villain, would be going too far and the police would then have to devote resources

When you look at an icon like Superman, you say, of course he'd never kill anyone. He's Superman, the embodiment of all that is good, he's far above that sort of thing. Even he will, if it means saving lives. Look at Doomsday, there was no other way that could have been handled. The DCAU worked around it, banishing the creature to the phantom zone while he was encased in hardened magma.

While Batman is often praised for being dark and violent, he too took a vow never to take a human life, under any circumstance. It is for this reason alone that the Joker is still alive. This is also the biggest problem with the "no kill" rule. Batman vowed to save lives and Superman summed him up as someone who doesn't want to see anyone die, yet the Joker, who has and will continue to unrepentantly kill people en masse goes on to live another day.

Like Darkseid does with Superman, the Joker pushes Batman's morals to the limit by acting as an agent of pure evil. Jason Todd even called it out saying that it would be wrong to kill others like Two-Face or the Penguin, but a mass murdering arch-criminal like the Joker would be the exception to the rule. Batman says that that would be too easy.

Kingdom Come refuted this logic and pretty much showed that the next generation of heroes would start there and end up going down a slippery slope that almost brought about Armageddon.

The Dark Knight also brought up this point and flat out stated that the Joker wanted Batman to kill him just to bring the Caped Crusader down to his level.

Interestingly enough, when Batman does work in a loophole, fans revolt. One of the most reviled things about Batman Begins is the end where (Spoiler alert!) Batman leaves Ra's on the train saying that he won't kill him, but he doesn't have to save him. In The Dark Knight, Batman lunges at Two-Face and the two of them fall off a ledge. Batman survives but it's heavily implied in the movie (and stated by both Nolan and Eckhart) that Harvey's dead. Fans weren't too pleased with that either, especially after the whole movie was about Batman trying to maintain his vow. On the other hand, Joker did say that he would get the Dark Knight to break his one rule, and he is a man of his word.

I understand the idea of heroes not wanting to take another life, however given the cardboard prisons the criminals get put in and given how dangerous some of them are, you almost get the feeling that the world would be better off if they blurred the line a little in extreme circumstances.