Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has Clark ever really crossed the moral line to save someone?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    "1) Clark turns back time to save Lana, knowing somebody else will die instead. Seems to cross the moral line."

    Clark didn't know that it would kill someone else. I don't think Clark would take that risk. Jor-El merely said, "Nature will find a balance," which, to all of us viewers watching, certainly indicates someone else will die, but to Clark, who was in such a state of bewilderment, probably just sounded cryptic and he was like, "whatever, I have to save Lana."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MozartRequiem
      "1) Clark turns back time to save Lana, knowing somebody else will die instead. Seems to cross the moral line."

      Clark didn't know that it would kill someone else. I don't think Clark would take that risk. Jor-El merely said, "Nature will find a balance," which, to all of us viewers watching, certainly indicates someone else will die, but to Clark, who was in such a state of bewilderment, probably just sounded cryptic and he was like, "whatever, I have to save Lana."
      Good points, all. It seems to step over the moral line one way or the other though. Either he knew somebody else would be harmed, and that was morally ambiguous, or he didn't take the 2 seconds it might require to figure out that Jor-El was giving him a pretty dire warning, in which case he would be guilty of some pretty severe negligence.

      At any rate, I was just throwing that out there. I don't feel strongly enough about the moral ambiguity in that situation to make a stronger argument in favor of it. You raise good, valid points. It's probably up as a matter of opinion.

      Comment


      • #18
        What about the Sandman that killed Alicia in season 4. Clark went after that guy full of rage. He put his hands around his neck squeezing tighter and tighter and right before he was about to kill him, Lois comes in and calms him down.

        I'm sure if Lois didn't show up, that kid's head would have popped off.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by nightshadz
          What about the Sandman that killed Alicia in season 4. Clark went after that guy full of rage. He put his hands around his neck squeezing tighter and tighter and right before he was about to kill him, Lois comes in and calms him down.

          I'm sure if Lois didn't show up, that kid's head would have popped off.
          Good one!

          I don't exactly recall what Lana said to him. Was it, "You can't say you've never, yada yada, to SAVE someone," or was it something else? Because that wasn't saving somebody so much as... well... murderous rage, lol.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Kryptonian-Ronin
            I recall a certain conversation last week where Clark tells Lex how he "hated that he had to kill so save lex", or something along those lines.
            That came from "Cure", Curtis Knox (Dean Cain) was about to kill Lex, Clark threw him into electric cables and it seemed as if Dr. Knox had been electrocuted - which if he hadn't been immortal, he would have been

            Comment


            • #21
              if the definition of moral line is Clark hidding the secret of his real origins all this seasons, then he´s completely justified., and he was right, he trusted Lana and the evil witch uses his powers for harming people in her own benefict., Clark was a stupid for telling her his secret, now the b**ch has used it as an excuse for doing all the damage she wants, she also hited Clark.

              Comment


              • #22
                There was also the time where Clark saves Lana as she falls with her "bodyguard" into Lex's mansion, he could have saved them both, he chose not to save the bodyguard.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I don't have the best memory when it comes to this show, but did'nt Clark nearly kill Lionel in the second to last episode of season 6? It was after Lana tells him that Lionel had forced her to marry Lex by threatening to kill Clark. Clark then goes to Luthercorp and is just about to kill Lionel when the Martian Manhunter comes in and stops him, explaining to him that Lionel is on their side.

                  Now in that scene before the Martian Manhunter shows up Clark is about to kill Lionel because he feels he is a threat to himself and Lana. Isn't that what Lana was doing by kidnapping Lionel early in this season? Protecting Clark and herself? I don't recall any conversations that Clark and Lana had early in this season regarding the fact that Lionel is good. It would have been nice if Clark would have told her.

                  I'm not defending Lana, she certainly crossed the line last night by trying to kill Lex. But when someone is just given superpowers it's difficult to predict how they would act no matter how good the person seems before that happens. Maybe she felt that she would soon lose the powers and needed to take care of Lex while she had the chance. Because Clark will always have his powers maybe he does'nt feel that strongly about stopping Lex. Maybe he feels that if Lex ever gets out of line he would stop him when that happens.

                  Anyway, I don't think Lana is as dark as everyone seems to think. She's dealing with the darkness just like most of the good characters in the show. Clark, Chloe, and Jonathon have all crossed over into that dark place at different times in the show. Is everyone forgetting that Jonathon gave himself a heart attack by going after Lionel to protect Clark?
                  Last edited by InAFlash; 11-09-2007, 07:58 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Lana is as dark as we think. That was the point of the episode. Lana is going down a parallal path to Lex. She's not the pink princess Clark thought she was.

                    As far as crossing the moral line, Clark has, quite a bit. Remember that whole red K crime spree in metropolis in season three. That was all to "protect everyone he loves". He was using red k like an addict uses crack, to escape his problems, and "save" everyone from the danger he presents.

                    There have been so many instances of the bad guy falling on their own sword, while Clark watches it's not even funny. For the character they are trying to portray, that's over the moral line. No one dies on Clark Kent's watch if he can save them. That includes suicides, and indirectly killing yourself if you are the bad guy. However, CLark, the man who can run to honduras in two seconds, can't take any time to stop someone from running themselves through with a stake, falling off buildings, or any of the number of other ways bad guys have bitten the dust.

                    Curtis Knox is a whole other story. He intentionally killed someone to save Lex, when that death was totally unnecessary, as the character had no special powers Clark was aware of.
                    Last edited by HalJordan4184; 11-09-2007, 08:12 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by chantal
                      But she's not taking responsibility. She's letting Clark, Lex, Lionel, and now Chloe, Lois and Grant cover up for crimes that should have her in jail! How is that taking responsibility?
                      But then, did Clark ever take responsibility for the crimes he committed in Metropolis during his three month crime spree? By all rights he should also be in prison right now. And before everyone jumps to the “But he was on Red K” excuse…Clark voluntarily was on the Red-K, knew exactly what he was doing, could have taken off the red-K ring whenever he wanted (and did on occasion) and thus is fully culpable for every crime he committed. But he never had to answer to the Metropolis PD or citizens for his actions.

                      Of course, he did call anonymously and let them know where the remainder of the stolen money that he DIDN’T spend was located. I guess that justifies things enough in his mind.

                      And I agree that the view on this topic depends solely on the viewers definition of morality. In my opinion, Clark has crossed that line more times than I can count.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I've said it many times that I don't feel like any of these characters can become the ones we know they are supposed to be as adults. Keep in mind that they are pretty much adults now as well so the, they're just young and stupid excuse, can't even hold up anymore. I enjoy watching Smallville but I just don't recognize any of the future characters in the ones that Al/Miles have created. I see it as an alterverse of Superman and then I don't have so many problems with it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          GREAT THREAD! So happy to see this!

                          That line of Lana's definitely didn't sit with me right and did have me wondering too.

                          I really don't think Clark himself feels that he's ever intentionally crossed the moral line to save someone, although he beats himself up continuously over that kind of thing, while those close to him try to convince him he needs to get off the guilt trip.


                          ---------------------------------------------------------

                          Also I think there is a big difference between crossing the moral line and crossing the legal line.

                          Crossing the moral line is about making an intentional personal decision or judgment to perform a certain act that goes against what you yourself know in your heart to be wrong, against the laws of God or Nature or whatever you believe in.

                          Putting on the Red K ring was simply a severely distressed teenager's way of coping with the utter despair and self-loathing he was experiencing at the time; not an intentional decision to cross the moral line, but a way to take his own pain away, because he knew it made him feel good.


                          ---------------------------------------------------------------
                          Anytime his actions have resulted in someone's death or in Dr. Knox's case, thought to be dead, it was NEVER with his intent to do so, and he was always so remorseful, and so guilt-stricken beyond reason, even when they were nothing but monsters with no humanity of their own. (except for that vine-lady in Wither, i don't think he felt bad about killing that)

                          I admit he did come very close to killing Alicia's murderer, and even if he had, the fact that the guy was more of a monster like the Zoners than a human, would get him off the hook in my book


                          So my answer is NO, Clark has never really crossed the moral line to save someone, and Lana was out of line saying so. They haven't really ever gotten to know each other very well. If they had, she would know better.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Oh yes....TEMPEST and saving Lana!!!!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Khyla
                              GREAT THREAD! So happy to see this!

                              That line of Lana's definitely didn't sit with me right and did have me wondering too.

                              I really don't think Clark himself feels that he's ever intentionally crossed the moral line to save someone, although he beats himself up continuously over that kind of thing, while those close to him try to convince him he needs to get off the guilt trip.


                              ---------------------------------------------------------

                              Also I think there is a big difference between crossing the moral line and crossing the legal line.

                              Crossing the moral line is about making an intentional personal decision or judgment to perform a certain act that goes against what you yourself know in your heart to be wrong, against the laws of God or Nature or whatever you believe in.

                              Putting on the Red K ring was simply a severely distressed teenager's way of coping with the utter despair and self-loathing he was experiencing at the time; not an intentional decision to cross the moral line, but a way to take his own pain away, because he knew it made him feel good.


                              ---------------------------------------------------------------
                              Anytime his actions have resulted in someone's death or in Dr. Knox's case, thought to be dead, it was NEVER with his intent to do so, and he was always so remorseful, and so guilt-stricken beyond reason, even when they were nothing but monsters with no humanity of their own. (except for that vine-lady in Wither, i don't think he felt bad about killing that)

                              I admit he did come very close to killing Alicia's murderer, and even if he had, the fact that the guy was more of a monster like the Zoners than a human, would get him off the hook in my book


                              So my answer is NO, Clark has never really crossed the moral line to save someone, and Lana was out of line saying so. They haven't really ever gotten to know each other very well. If they had, she would know better.
                              It was totally across the moral line, what Clark did Curtis Knox. What did he think was going to happen, when he tossed a perfectly normal human being, with the force of a cruise missle, into a transformer box running high voltage through it? He knew it would kill a person, and he did it anyway, without it being necessary. If he were a cop, he could be brought up on charges. Just because he's Clark, and he was trying to save Lex, doesn't make the bad guys life expendable.

                              I have also never seen Clark so "guilt stricken". He's perfectly fine with everything he's ever done, and that's the problem.

                              As far as the red k, he was using the kryptonian equivalent of crack, intentionally, repeated times. If it's not immoral for him, any crack head, meth head, heroin addict, and any other drug user should be given a free pass as well, as most of them are using to escape their pain too, and were also confused at one point.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                of course he has, that´s another thing that Al&Miles are scrubbing about Smallville to, it´s really bad that they make Clark does things like apologizing the evil things that Lana is doing, and even balming himself or blaming something or someone else for the fails of that b**ch, originally she was just a childhood sweetheart, I don´t know what the hell is she doing in Smallville yet, Clark definetely must wake up of his stupid pink fairy tale and move on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                😀
                                🥰
                                🤢
                                😎
                                😡
                                👍
                                👎