Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by HalJordan4184
    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.
    you can chalk it up to bad writing, but Clark obviously did not intend to throw Knox into something that would purposely result in his death. it looked like he just pushed him out of the way, and not being used to using his super strength all the time, he doesn't always have complete control of the outcome (He's not Superman yet, remember)

    I have also never seen Clark so "guilt stricken". He's perfectly fine with everything he's ever done, and that's the problem.
    Are you serious , or are you just trying to prod me for the hell of it?

    His guilt-trips even get to the point that fans complain about his over-doing it. Even when the fight in COMBAT, indirectly resulted in Titan's death, he still felt guilty, for cryin out loud! (that guy was soulless monster, and Clark was not only saving others from certain death by Titan's hands, but himself as well) Do you need more examples, lines from scripts, etc.? there's plenty of them!

    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. [/B]
    the question was, 'has he crossed the moral line to save someone'.

    Who was he 'saving' when he decided to put on the Red K ring?? (other than maybe saving himself from doing something worse, like self-mutilation or suicide)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by HalJordan4184
      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?
      I never believed that Clark realized that when he shoved Knox he would hit the transformer box, I really saw that as an accident.

      However, with Titan, even though he fell on his own blade, I saw Clark as trying to murder him, he knew what he was there to do. To kill Titan before Titan killed him in order to save countless others.

      With both Titan and Gloria, his moral code scues (sp?) because they are not human. This is not their home.

      With redK and being so young, I can forgive this, he didn't know what he was doing and he was in extreme pain/anguish.

      So regarding the moral line, I don't think he's crossed it with humans, but he has with non-humans.

      Comment


      • #33
        Anyone who possesses great power commits a crime, because no one should have the power of life and death over other men, the only way to expiate that crime, the power of life and death ,is the utmost responsibility which one uses that power, Clark has expiated that crime, by his moral code, his honor, his integrity, and the utmost responsibility by which he has used that power, that is the quintessence of his character, Lana acted as the very antithesis of his moral code, she used the great powers that she received from him to hurt other people, to see retitration, and to seek revenge, contrast that with Clark repeated rescues of Whitney, Jason, Lex all rivals for her affection, within that difference of character, of values, and of moral judgement will be the end of the Clark/Lana story.

        Comment


        • #34
          Khyla- "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."

          I disagree with both of your statements. To cross a moral line, you need not necessarily violate what you "in your heart" believe to be wrong, this view suggests that moral transgression is contingent entirely on your beliefs. For example, even if a detective believed that he was "in his heart" right, in framing an innocent man for murder in order that the rest of society would see an execution and order was restored to the community, he would still have committed a moral transgression (if this action was in fact a transgression, which many philosophers may argue). Lex Luthor may not necessarily go against what he believes to be right and wrong, when he imprisons the meteor infected, but he still has crossed a moral line, one that exists not relative to what Lex believes is right and wrong, but independent of it. If we accept that what constitutes morality, for an individual, is based entirely on what they personally believe, than we must accept that if one believed that rape or murder was permissible, or even mandated, that they would be commiting no transgressions in doing these horrendous acts. I believe the human "heart", as you describe it, differing, of course, from the organ that circulates blood throughout the body, may be a means of obtaining moral knowledge, but I doubt that it constitutes it. After all, what other human faculty could possibly unveil this truth? Your eyes can see colors and shapes, your ears can hear noises, your can touch things and feel. I doubt that the nose or tongue could taste or smell what morality is. The logical component of our minds can determine causal connections and warn us of contradictions, but it seems that some part of our mind, called "the heart", may be that which allows us to translate the empirical knowledge given us to our other senses to discern right from wrong. This is an epistemological question that merits much further discussion, however, I believe that it is ludicrous to say that this component of our mind, which you referred to as "the heart", does not simply discern morality, but actually constitutes it.

          When Clark went on his excursion to Metropolis, wearing his Red Kryptonite ring, he was fully aware of the dangers he posed to others lives and property. He knew that, with the ring equipped, he was mercurial and had far less respect for the lives or wishes of others, and ceded the rights of others to whatever his immediate inclinations be, whether rambunctious, veangeful, or even lustful. Knowing the dangers he posed to others, he still relinquished his obligations to others in favor of an escape from his own pain. I definitely think that Clark knowingly did some wrong in allowing himself to pose such a danger to others, when clearly, as we saw in the episode, he had several instances where he could have abstained from the influence of Red Kryptonite. I believe you may be correct in saying that Clark's situation mitigated his guilt. He was drawn to this state of weakness, where he could not stand to live with his present self, due to a very human and meritorious element in himself, his guilt of causing the death of Martha's unborn child. However, clearly here, he made choices in which he understood the risks involved, and crossed moral line.


          EDIT:
          To CDLBlue: I fail to understand how having great power is an inherent wrong to which one must atone for. Is impotence then your greatest human virtue? Power is the means to guide the will. If this will is malevolent, than power will likey lead to wrongs being done to others. However, Clark Kent's will is benevolent, seeking to help others, and do good for the world, or at least at this stage those he currently feels affection for. I don't see how the possession of power automatically implies some bad, but rather it is neutral, something to be employed by the will toward whatever ends the will would have.
          Last edited by Barogrei; 11-13-2007, 01:19 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by MozartRequiem
            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."
            Clark knew someone had to die for him to live. If he saved Lana, then he knew someone else close to him would die. He went into that situation knowing full well he'd rather have someone else close to him die than Lana.

            Comment


            • #36
              Heros do not tend to take the words of those they percieve as a force contrary to their will as absolutes. I think Clark had the naive belief that he could fully save the day, rescuing lava, and preventing the deaths of anyone close to him that he could. Remember, Clark would not accept that his mother was going to die, and it turned out that he was able to prevent her death. Although I know that Marth Kent's ailment stemmed from Brainiac,and not whatever fates Jor-el knew of (controlled?), I think that Clark, at that point, was going to try to do as much good for whoever was immediately in danger, and deal with cheating fate one person at a time. Unfortunately, he couldn't do this another time, and Johnathan Kent died. As Clark did not accept the knowledge Jor-el gave him as necessarily true, I do not think he was fully responsible as he could not know that causal connection completely, and would rather save one person, and gamble that Jor-el's final end was possibly avoidable, or Lana die, and guarantee one death when perhaps one death was avoidable. If someone were to hold a mother's child hostage, and tells her that she must allow him to die by his hands, or else, upon a later date, that hostage's sibling, who was currently with the mother, would die, it would make sense for the mother to accept the lunatic's bargain and get her son back, while trying to ensure the safety of the second son, so that the lunatic would fail to actualize his threat. Although you may protest that Jor-el's promise would necessarily be actualized, can you blame Clark for questioning that this being has such intimate knowledge of the universe's causal structure? In any case, either choices of Clark's would guarantee a maximum of one death, whereas allowing Lana's death would guarantee that that one death would happen, whereas not allowing it would open the possiblity (from Clark's viewpoint of understandable ignorance) of no deaths. He made the right choice.

              Comment


              • #37
                I wonder all the time why clark has to squeeze so hard to kill someone. I mean yes dramatic effect, but seriously all those times he has chocked people...they should have ended up with a bruise larynx or something.

                Comment


                • #38
                  i didn't say he never did anything wrong. I agree he's done a lot of things one can consider 'wrong', and has made a lot of bad choices. He's not perfect.

                  Crossing the moral line IMO means deliberately committing an act which violates accepted principles of what's right and what's wrong.

                  And it IS somewhat subjective, and often has to do with the context.

                  For the sake of argument, wouldn't some ppl consider that just the act of taking Lana's dead body to Jor-El to "Fix this!" a moral transgression in itself?

                  I believe when Lana used that line, she specifically meant he must have committed a specific immoral act, ie. killed someone intentionally, in order to save someone else.

                  to personally hold someone captive and torture them, or to kill someone outright in cold blood - that's immoral.

                  Originally posted by Mischael12
                  I wonder all the time why clark has to squeeze so hard to kill someone. I mean yes dramatic effect, but seriously all those times he has chocked people...they should have ended up with a bruise larynx or something.
                  I often saw that as him trying to constrain himself. I guess everyone sees what they want to see.
                  And he's never actually killed someone like that.
                  Last edited by Khyla; 11-13-2007, 06:40 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The thing is... Clark comes close to the moral line.. but never ever crosses it...

                    I mean he never killed Lexod despite the good it will cause... He never killed any murderous Meteor Freaks... Didn't really kill ANY Zoners, despite the urge and need to... He technically didn't kill Wes... he just overloaded him with the heatvison...

                    We see Clark head to the Line... stepping on it really but he never fully crosses it... that's what makes him different from Lex. Yes.. in the moment he would want to kill get to the line but he has NEVER crossed it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Except when he has. With Clark's level of power, and the unique view of things that affords him, even being on what your or I would call the moral line, can be a trangression for Clark. There is no reason for Clark to go in and kill anyone, which on the show he has believed he has done, and the only reason he didn't, was because Knox was immortal. There is no reason for him to use excessive force, which he does all the time. Clark can be careful. He's been shown to have complete control over his strength and speed. The only time he lost control of it was Perry when Solar Flares were affecting his abilities.

                      But back to my point, excessive force, is crossing the moral line. That's intentionally inflicting more harm than is necessary to stop a perceived threat. Clark can take out half the people he fights with a tap to the head, like he's done for his friends. Instead, he flings them fifty feet into concrete, or brick walls, into electrical transformers, and anything else metal or masonry, and completely unforgiving to impact that happens to be around. Just because it's TV, doesn't suddenly make Clark's level of violence appropriate. I'm not above saying Superman needs to duke it out, and occasionally inflict some pain, and damage. However, against powerless human enemies, he doesn't need to inflict the same damage he does against superstrong meteor freaks, yet he does. That is a moral transgression.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I'm sorry but if we're to assume Lana crossed the moral line by trying to kill Lex. Then should'nt we assume that Clark did the same thing in last season's final episode to Lionel. I just watched the scene. Clark has his fist cocked and is ready to strike Lionel. Doing so would obviously kill Lionel. The Martian Manhunter then arrives and puts his hand in front of Clark's fist to stop him. What would have happend if MM had'nt arrived? It's the same situation in "Wrath". It appears Lana will kill Lex and then Clark arrives and stops her. You could say that Clark nearly killed Lionel to protect Lana and himself from Lionel. Which would justify his actions somewhat. But you can also say that Lana's intentions in trying to kill Lex were also to protect Clark and herself based on what she knows about Lex and his intentions. I can't see much of a difference between what Clark nearly did to Lionel and what Lana nearly did to Lex.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by MidgardDragon
                          I don't think he has to the extent that she was willing to. But he's also been on the edge and willing to go that far before remembering what he stands for before. With Lana, though, she didn't pull back until someone (Clark) stopped her. I don't think he's ever been that far over the line. He has killed before, but has yet to do so on purpose.
                          YEah which is why I just kind of blinked at the TV screen and went, "huh?". What ground does Lana have to based this on and furthermore did the writers forget everything they ever wrote up to this point? In all the seven years I have been watching Smallville I have never seen him cross the moral line except for when he was under the influence of red kryptonite. The difference here is that Lana is doing all this without any outside influence. She could argue that Les drove her to this but Lex is not forcing her to do anything. She ultimately has made the decision to do whatever it takes.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            As for the excessive force used on this show...and that doesn't just apply to Clark...I'm not going to hold that against any character. From the first season, the show has used that over-the-top, cartoonish sort of effect, and much more often then not, people come out of it unscathed, or with a little, bitty bruise over one eyebrow. Sure, we could see Clark carefully tapping people on the head to knock them out, but I think TPTB would also see that as far less visually entertaining, and they're right. People like their action and violence, and a gentile Clark is likely not going to cut it for most of the folks at home.

                            On the subject of Clark crossing the moral line, I think he has. But I think the difference, for me, is that its not a cold, calculated move from Clark. And it is almost always followed with some genuine reflection, or usually motivated by some extreme emotional event. Which isn't to suggest its right, only that it puts his behavior in context, and shows us someone that does seem to struggle with the moral line.

                            I think the real difference with Lana in this situation is the precise planning and cold execution, and the fact that this has been going for months. It suggests a whole other mindset then we've ever seen from Clark. He's lashed out violently in moments of extreme upset and despair. But a prolonged campaign of carefully planned vengeance? That I haven't seen from him.

                            Again, the 30' throws are a show thing, and that sort of unrealistic violence is evident all over the show. I don't see it as a Clark thing. YMMV.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Considering he's killed at least one person per episode, he's got to be worse in the police's eyes than the BTK Killer.

                              And taking the law into your own hands is crossing the line, too. Sheriff Adams was always pissed at Clark for entering crime scenes.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Considering he's killed at least one person per episode, he's got to be worse in the police's eyes than the BTK Killer.
                                Huh??!! Are you talking about Clark here? He most certainly has NOT killed one person per episode.

                                And taking the law into your own hands is crossing the line, too. Sheriff Adams was always pissed at Clark for entering crime scenes.
                                Well then, I guess pretty much every superhero sucks. They all take the law into their hands to some extent. As long as they do the right thing, I don't think most lovers of heroes and comic books seem to mind

                                Comment

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