Role Of Ethics In Pop Culture

Pop Culture Ethics: With Great Power Comes…Great Responsibility?
Clement A Barnes III

Abstract
Comic books are a staple of American culture, a long standing series of colorful glimpses into the human imagination. For nearly a century, artists, writers, and the like have documented a universe of vibrant heroes, dastardly villains, futuristic technology, and moral dilemmas. The truth is, comic books are a pastel pastiche of philosophical and ethical debate. They are pulpy pages of philosophical postulations. They are creative classical conundrums, calibrated collectively in order to question culture. Comic books are artful studies into the very nature of good and evil, and of right and wrong. In short, comic books are the modern
You are obligated to adopt a particular role in life if and only if doing so will bring about the greatest overall good. Needless to say, this suggests that folks with superpowers have a duty to become superheroes, since it’s the very business of superheroes to promote the overall good of all. So now we have an answer to Peter Parker’s query from Spider-Man 2. According to utilitarianism he’s obligated to remain our friendly neighborhood superhero. (Robichaud, 2005)

Robichaud deftly breaks down this theory by pointing out the flaws in the ideas of utilitarianism. He argues that this theory can lead to “unintuitive” actions, hypocritical actions, and be disallowing of supererogatory actions (actions that are “good to do but not bad to do”. (Robichaud, 2005)). He uses an example of Wonder Woman having to decide to kill a child in order to prevent a massacre to show utilitarianism forcing actions that go against the core of a character’s being. Clearly, the most good would come from preventing the massacre, but are we really promoting killing a child? The essay shows utilitarian actions being unjust, in a story that has the Joker sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. Killing him would save future lives, but it would be unjust. Robichaud even argues that utilitarianism focuses too
This a staple of the theories espoused by both Immanuel Kant and F.H. Bradley.

The basic idea is this: we cannot get people to do their moral duty by appealing to their self-interest, since if they do the right thing for merely self-interested reasons, they are not acting morally at all. We must do the right thing because it is right. (Layman, 2005).

The problem he has with this is that is possible to be put in a situation where one will be forced to do the right thing because it’s right even though it may not be the rational thing to do. This creates the paradigm where the right thing to do is irrational and therefore demoralizing. I feel that this is a convoluted argument. Kant would argue that we have a responsibility to do the right, moral thing and utilitarians would argue to do the thing that has the most positive outcome for the most people. I would also ask the question, “what if I am more motivated to do something morally wrong?” If I have a better reason to do wrong than to do the right thing, why would I choose the moral