Morals and Reality: The Consequences of "Mercy"

Do you read DC Comics? Do you read a lot of Justice League? Do you know who Maxwell Lord is?

Then you probably remember a little comic called Infinite Crisis, in which Max Lord, criminal mastermind and expert manipulator, took control of Superman's mind. After coercing Superman into brutalizing Batman, he sets the kryptonian's sights on Wonder Woman, leaving her in a battle for her life against a friend and ally. There is no question that this very well could be the death of her and she's only left with one choice: Stopping whatever is controlling Superman.

When she discovers Maxwell Lord is behind the mind control, she quickly finds him, lassos him with her Lasso of Truth (which, if you are unfamiliar with Wonder Woman's powers, forces anyone lassoed to speak the truth), and asks him how to end the manipulation of Superman. Without the ability to lie, he frankly gives her the only way to to stop him: She'll have to kill him.

It is worth stressing a point here that Maxwell Lord, at this point, has taken control of what would, without any argument, be called the world's most powerful super weapon. He has gone on a destructive and violent rampage with Superman, violently attacking Batman and has turned him against Wonder Woman. He even says, "And the next time he’ll kill Batman… or Lois… or you. You think I’ve lied to you, but I haven’t. I can’t. He’s mine. I’ll never let him go.” The only way to fix this? The only way to win back Superman's mind and end Maxwell Lord's control? Killing him.

This is exactly what Diana does. She snaps his neck without much of a second thought. Why? Because as long as Maxwell Lord has Superman under his control, no one can or ever will be safe. Especially not herself. She made a judgement call that would save her life and the lives of countless others. How do Batman and Superman react to this?

By chastising her choice and basically abandoning her.

DC Comics has a history of writing characters as role models, ideals for men and women. They write them with strict codes of ethics; including never killing a villain. In theory, this makes them strong and benevolent. In practice, it proves not only counter-productive, but moronic at it's very core.

Two primary examples I'd like to use are the Joker and Darkseid. The Joker has had a long history of murder, destruction, torture, manipulation, theft, etc. This man has caused more misery in Gotham and worldwide than any of Batman's rogue gallery to date. Darkseid is, without a doubt, an even worse creature. His galaxy-wide path of destruction and domination is unmatched in the DC Universe.

On several occasions, both Batman and Superman refrained from taking the necessary steps to kill them both.

In the defense of Superman, killing Darkseid is not an easy task. In further defense of Batman, he's the one who finally pulled the trigger (quite literally) to stop him in Final Crisis where he was ultimately laid to rest. However, it still remains that Superman has always shown a certain amount of restraint, even with Darkseid, in eliminating threats that would, without a doubt, return to not only seek revenge, but take countless lives in the process.

With Batman, however, there is hardly such an excuse or defense. This man has gone out of his way to save villains who have more deaths to their name than most of history's maniacal dictators. The Joker is easily the worst offender here, and again, Batman hasn't only refrained from putting the psychopath out of the world's misery: He's saved him in cases of certain death.

Why? Because apparently, if either of these two men went "down that road", they would never come back. They would be tainted and, furthermore, no longer be the heroes they present themselves as. This rings especially true with Bruce Wayne, a man who had lost his parents to murder.

I call bullshit.

These are men that have spent their lives tempering themselves and devoting every second they can to saving people and making the world a better place. A single re-evaluation of their principles could help them saves hundreds upon thousands more lives. If they really have such a problem with killing villains, then why do they allow the death penalty? What, it's only alright to kill someone when a jury decides? But the Joker kills hundreds of people and--

OH! He's INSANE! So it's ethically unsound to kill him!

I'm sorry, but the lack in logic here is too profound for me. I cannot sit back and ignore this backwards line of reasoning. Killing the Joker (or at the very least letting him die) would have saved Barbara Gordon from a lifetime in a wheel chair and countless other lives torn to shreds. Putting down Darkseid would have saved planets, civilizations, and so on.

You cannot say you are willing to spare one person's life at the expense of a hundred more if you are going to outright say you are opposed to ending one life to save a hundred more.