"Super Science Headache Time" or "A Question About Morality And Emotions"

[Seil]

So I want to study four things: sociology, philosophy, biology and theology. Why? Because I've finally figured out how to phrase... some sort of question:

From a purely biological viewpoint, a predator is right to defend its most recent kill, claiming the food for itself and its young. However, this is seen in todays society as a faux pas, refusing someone because of apparent selfishness or greed. The greed and selfishness bits we would attribute to a antagonist theological figure, or as a part of ourselves that should be controlled or expunged.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, there's the man who shares everything he's got. Societally philanthropic. This leaves him with less: less food, less money, less time... everything that from a biological standpoint would leave the hypothetical "him" at the mercy of the wilds, at more of a risk of being picked off by any other predator.

The thing that I find fascinating is that the logical question from all of this is "At what point did we change our baser natures and how did we accomplish that?" Arthur C. Clarke mentions that it is "yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." And then the question above brings all sorts of other things arise from that, such as the adoption and adaptation of a justice system. How did what we view as "positive" moral aspirations become the social norm?

It's a good thing to donate to a charity. Why is that? Why are humans hard wired to try to react to the suffering of another person or creature, and want to help at a personal cost of time or money? Well, going back to biology, neuroscience talks about "mirror neurons." These neurons were discovered in the 1990's by Italian scientists, and are responsible, it seems, for empathy. They allow you to sympathize - when you see a person stub their toe or bang their head, you wince along with them. It's because the neuron in your brain reacts the their stimuli.

It's a little weird that your heartstrings are being pulled in your head, I think.

Studies on human nature, especially when said nature differs from the collective norm is amazing to me. (And especially since this collective norm apparently only applies to one species on the whole of the world.) Why is morality? A poorly worded question my English professor would throw a fit about. But maybe I'm over thinking it. Maybe we are what we are because through the thousands of years that we've (in our sapien form, at least) been around, we've decided that it's nicer to be nice.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Evolutionary psychology is pretty scientifically bankrupt with a good majority of the field revolving around story-telling that you can use to judge pretty much anything.
Pretty much the only thing we can say for certain is "human nature" is incredibly fluid. We can also trace the origin of lots of "moral" things, like the onset of communities, the codification of rules of behaviour and justice for trangressors, as well as changes to more monogomy and child rearing behaviours. But for why they happened, who knows?
Old father time.

[Krylo]

Man is a social animal. Other social animals share and defend what's theirs on a balance that is, mostly, good for the greater pack as well.

Wolves, ants, lions, etc.

[Doc ock rokc]

The question on morals can like barrel said be traced back to the founding of communities/religions. They are developed over the from the rules of a community.

The whole thing on empathy though has to come from our base sociological pack instinct rather then mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are not really our empathic centers but rather the parts of our brain that do "monkey see monkey do" its the reason why you have the urge to try martial arts after watching a jacky chan flick.

[Amake]

Adam Smith said, "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." Which is the same thing you've figured out for yourself here, Seil, except with less commas. I don't think it's important to understand why we are this way, beyond the obvious. It's the same reason why we have two eyes instead of one: We work better that way.

Question it if you must, but to my mind it only matters that you don't forget it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I went to see Adam Smith's grave in Edinburgh. I pissed on it. Let that be a lesson how much we should listen to Adam Smith.

[Seil]

Yes, Barrel, but you'd piss on the grave of the dude who cut in front of you in line, or the waiter that mixed up your order, or the trash collector who didn't grab your garbage when you set it out.

...You're a strange man, is what I'm saying.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I went to see Adam Smith's grave in Edinburgh. I pissed on it. Let that be a lesson how much we should listen to Adam Smith.

The only moral I learned from this story is don't let Smarty near graveyards.

[Magus]

Smarty is the descendant of the guy who invented pissing on the Blarney Stone, probably.

I'm not sure humans are as empathic as you think, Seil. Plenty seem plenty opposed to any kind of charitable giving at all, regularly spitting on beggars, pushing blind people down stairs, etc. Some are even sociopaths, serial killers, rapists, etc. That's not to say there aren't plenty of empathic people but this idea that we are hardwired to be empathic seems pretty off to me. Your environment and upbringing are going to be massively responsible for how you treat others. Genetics are such a tiny part of the puzzle--it is supposed that humans are genetically hardwired to live in groups, because living in a group gave those who lived in a group an advantage to survive long enough to pass on their genes. BUT there are plenty of lone wolves out there, too.

Something you might be interested in was a scientific study about charitable giving. Respondents were given two scenarios:

1. Women on the other side of the world are being sold into sex slavery. For only 1000 dollars, a charitable organization will buy a slave and free her from bondage. There is 100% documented proof they are successful in freeing slaves 100% of the time, given the cash. Would you donate a thousand dollars to save one of these women?

2. A woman is drowning in a lake as you watch. You are wearing an expensive, 1000 dollar suit. What do you do?

Respondents were much more likely to dive into the lake to save the drowning woman than they were to donate money to free a sex slave, even though the monetary cost was the same. Apparently these questions in conjunction with some others shows that people are more concerned about helping people they can see or are in the presence off than they are in helping faceless people on the other side of the planet, even though both are as documented to be in danger as the other.

Said study's results were probably questionable but you know, food for thought.

[Krylo]

Respondents were much more likely to dive into the lake to save the drowning woman than they were to donate money to free a sex slave, even though the monetary cost was the same.

Actually, it's not. In the second scenario they have already spent $1000 on a suit. That money is gone. They now have an article of clothing that has been devalued through use and they'd be lucky to get a hundred dollars out of if they were to sell it back. In order for it to be an equal monetary cost one would have to ABSOLUTELY NEED that suit to the point that they would have to immediately replace it with another $1000 suit.

Else monetary cost is different, or at least diffused over whatever time period they might need to save money to buy a new suit.

Further, there's more at play than just whether they can see the person. In the former it's a charitable organization, this brings up all kinds of unconscious assumptions, but the one that's mostly going to play into these results is the fact that an organization means there's a shit ton of people involved, and it's a GLOBAL organization meaning they're asking for money probably globally. That means there's around seven billion people worth of diffused responsibility involved.

That is to say, it's easy to justify not spending the $1000 because, hey, someone else will. Which is also why people stand around and watch someone get stabbed to death when any one of them could have potentially stopped it, much less so many of them. Everyone is waiting for someone else to take responsibility. It's a known psychological issue.

In the drowning scenario we're left with 'we see this woman drowning' and not told that it's a busy beach or anything else. It makes it feel like we're the only person who CAN save her, thus we MUST. Blah blah etc. etc.

Further, it's unlikely you'll get an accurate assessment out of asking people hypotheticals. Would you jump into water to save a drowning woman? Most people are going to say yes even if they wouldn't were they actually there, and some people are going to say no who WOULD if they were actually there.

That said: yes, people are more likely to stick their necks out on the line for someone they can see. This isn't going to show up in a study accurately, however, because it's an instinctual gut reaction, not something people really THINK about. It has to do with having to actually see it happening and how that affects us mentally and emotionally as opposed to being told something is happening, and as a study can only tell...

Further: Humans are social animals. The animals we evolved from were social animals. There's been all kinds of science and studies proving that humans just don't work as lone wolves. Not REALLY. There's a whole scale of possible levels of comfort with socialization/not socializing, but all mentally healthy human beings require some form of socialization to not, you know, go nuts. Them's just facts.

It's also just facts that people are empathic toward each other, lacking the mentally unwell. Sociopaths have an actual honest to god chemical imbalance that causes their brains to not work the way it should/does in other people, so they're a very poor example... and also the only people who don't really empathize.

Whiiiiich all goes back to yes, we totally do feel compelled to save people we can see, because the way our brains work we empathize with people we can see much more than things we hear about.

[Seil]

Said study's results were probably questionable but you know, food for thought.

Could you get me a link to that? I'd like to read it.

The question I have to that involves a word that escapes me... Mayhap it's because I've been drinking. However, there's a book called "Help", which I think I linked on the forums at some point, where the author, a minister, deconstructs the tale of the Good Samaritan:

A man lay on the road, robbed and beaten, and close to death. One man passes, spots the man, and continues walking. A second man passes, spots the man, and continues on. A third man, a Samaritan merchant, spots the man, picks him up and cleans his wounds with what he had. He then rests the man on his mule and takes him to the nearest inn where he asks the merchant to take care of him, informing the merchant that he (the Samaritan) will reimburse him for the costs on the way back.

The author of Help mentions several interesting bits:

1) The two men who passed by may have thought the man to be dead. In the views of their society at the time, they were subject to extremes if they defiled or were defiled by touching a dead body.

2) The Samaritan had resources available, being a merchant, and traveling with cargo. He may have poulticed the mans wounds with olive oil or whatever, but that was the best he had. He also had a mule carrying his goods which he sat the man on.

3) The inn keeper must have known and trusted the Samaritan merchant, otherwise he might not have let him leave the injured man. It must have been a route the Samaritan traveled often, which means he must be a successful merchant. His coin was as good as his word.

There's a miniature essay in the book commenting on the parable, not much of which I can remember now, but I found it fascinating.

[Amake]

To make that parable applicable to the modern world we should probably replace "Samaritan merchant" with "CEO of an oil company". It isn't about a man of means doing something nice that others do not so much as the last person you'd ever expect to do anything for someone else, defying our prejudices.

Now for this hypothetical scenario, I guess I have a thousand dollars I don't need AND a thousand dollar suit? Such wild fantasies. I can hardly imagine what either of those things would be like, and so it's easy to imagine giving them up. I think what we need is a hypothetical where the sacrifice you make to save these lives is something real and tangible. Let's say:

1. Women on the other side of the world are being sold into sex slavery. An evil genie appears and says it will liberate one of these women for every twenty-five years of your life you give it. How many women will you save?

2. A woman is drowning in a lake as you watch. You know you're the closest person to her and you'll never get to her in time. An evil genie pops out and tells you, "I can save her life if you give me twenty-five years of your life." What do you do?

The costs are higher, yet affordable to anyone. Also by making the cost perfectly equal in both cases, we get a clearer picture of how distance matters to the part of the brain that wants to help people, colon: Not at all. You all feel equally moved to give up all that future in both scenarios, right?

Maybe it's significant that you can't actually see the cost. Maybe that matters more than if you can see the person in danger or not.

And Smarty, you continue to set a stellar example of being contrary. Seriously, when I make my life decisions I just think "What would Smarty do?" and then I do the exact opposite. Your stated disdain of Smith validates his awkwardly worded thesis wonderfully.

[TDK]

What? That's a terrible cost. At BEST that's a quarter of your life. For all you know, the drowning woman is some jackoff crack whore who's just going to waste the life you gave back to her anyway. At worst, the odds are even that she's going to do something meaningful with those twenty five years, rather than you doing something meaningful with them. Honestly, who can't swim anyway? There's probably a good reason she's in there.

But I suppose if you know you aren't going to do shit with those years, and are willing to make the trade on the chance that she WILL, it would be a fair trade. But that's not really a good thing for you because those years don't have value to you in that circumstance anyway.


Freeing the captive woman might be considered more worth it in that being a sex slave is arguably quite a bit worse than drowning, but this is an evil genie, so I would need more specifics. If an evil genie says he will 'liberate' them, that could mean anything. I would need it worded more specifically. Like if they're just going to be freed where they are (probably some third world shithole), they're not really much better off. If they're going to be freed and brought somewhere nice, or home, or something (assuming their home isn't terrible and still exists, they weren't orphans or something), that might be more worth it. But really its the same problem as with the drowning woman, in that its only worth it if there's zero chance you'll do anything meaningful with those years, and the woman might do so.

Where and how they get freed affects that, though. Freed in a third world country, that severely limits their prospects. Maybe if they're, I don't know, freed and given a free education in whatever they want at Yale or some really good school or something, giving them a huge amount of choices and potential, that would be better. But that assumes they are actually intelligent in the first place, and would even want to go to Yale. It seems to be you'd be pretty fucking obligated to do something with your life if someone gives up so much to give it back to you, even going so far as to give you all the potential in the world by sending you to a prestigious school for free, but that's just me.

[Amake]

Yeah, well, I wanted to get folks to question just how much a random person's life is worth to them. If you're seriously considering if you're going to save the people in these scenarios or not I guess it worked.

It's true the "liberate" part was pretty sketchy. Wasn't thinking it through completely. Let's say the genie will relocate them to anywhere in the world they want and provide any papers they might need to be there. It's starting to sound like a pretty nice genie, but remember you're still paying a very high price.

I don't think the answer is to calculate who has a better chance of doing anything meaningful with the years in question. It's to figure out how badly you want to help people.

Personally I want to ask the genie what happens if I give up more of my time than I'm ever going to have. Maybe my answer to #1 can be "all of them".

[Seil]

I stopped paying attention as soon as you said 'evil genie.'

[Magus]

I can't find the study I mentioned (drowning women v. sex slave women). I know it was mentioned in a Radiolab documentary on NPR, though, so maybe one of the title of one of the Radiolab podcasts on their website would clue you in to what it was. I believe it was the opening segment of the episode, so...like it may have actually been a question posed by just the host to illustrate the results of a multitude of other studies, actually, the conclusion of which pointed to people caring more about those in front of them than out of sight, out of mind.

Deconstructing the parable of the Good Samaritan that way is utterly pointless. It's a parable meant to teach a moral lesson, not an actual historical occurrence. As such it would be pointless to try and excuse their actions based on things not in the parable, such as cultural mores regarding dead bodies. The guy is wounded, not dead, and presumably it is obvious he is not dead. The Samaritan helps the guy out of the goodness of his heart, not just because it is convenient to do so. At the time, Samaritans were looked down upon in Jewish society, but his actions were what was important. Jesus also had parables regarding publicans (lawyers), beggars, etc. where what they did was important, not what they are. The point was appearances are deceiving, it is works that are important.

I liked the evil genie alteration, since it does raise the stakes quite a bit. I thought "yes" in my head to the one, then I was like "shit that's like 50 to do both" so I guess I'm halfway to not being totally horrible. Then TDK made me think about why the evil genie wants years of my life. Does he use them to extend his own lifespan? Why should I be giving up decades of my life just to help some evil genie who could just help them himself if he wasn't evil with like, zero effort extended? Why doesn't the evil genie just ask the people drowning to give up something or other (not really years since that's an easy exchange, since you're dying anyway) in exchange for being saved?

But of course that is doing the same thing that other dude did to the deconstruction of the parable of the Good Samaritan: sticking in things outside the question/parable being posed.

[Amake]

It's just an evil genie. That's what they do, create cruel dilemmas to fuck with people. It doesn't have to punish you to help those other people, it's just funnier that way. And what's wrong with that Seil? You got something against evil genies, you genie racist?

[Magus]

It's just an evil genie. That's what they do, create cruel dilemmas to fuck with people. It doesn't have to punish you to help those other people, it's just funnier that way. And what's wrong with that Seil? You got something against evil genies, you genie racist?

THE ONLY GOOD GENIE IS A BOTTLED GENIE

[Osterbaum]

You are such a racist.

[Seil]

I stopped paying attention to this thread after we started talking about Robin Williams, but hey - I just bought The Dark Knight on Blu-Ray (so good, you guys, so sharp) and I was watching Bruce Wayne feel remorse for (I 'aint spoilerin' nothin' here, if you're interested you've seen the movie) Maggie Gyllenhall's death.

Which is understandable, she was great in Stranger Than Fiction.

Anyway, it got me thinking - eventually, supervillains go after the heroes family or loved ones. Why would anyone want to be a hero? Bruce Wayne especially, since he's got no powers, he makes more of an effort.

Because he wants to do good.

And we, as in real people, created superheroes. Well, some of the real people did during WWII so that they could, with propoganda, literally punch Hitler in the face, artisically. But hopefully mostly the doing good thing.

Which, I don't know, I guess is food for thought.

[BitVyper]

Bruce Wayne is hilarious because his literal stated goal is essentially controlling the people through fear. I mean, he has the colourful supervillains which justify his existence as much as they justify any superhero's existence (although I have to side with Glimmermoon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcU2-Fm8wVQ) on that one), but his overall goal is pretty hilariously oppressive toward the lower classes.

[Amake]

Granted, the criminals he fights tend to be of the lower classes. But he wants to scare everyone in the city so bad they don't dare break the law. He might just be oppressive in general.

[Aerozord]

Yeah, well, I wanted to get folks to question just how much a random person's life is worth to them. If you're seriously considering if you're going to save the people in these scenarios or not I guess it worked.

It's true the "liberate" part was pretty sketchy. Wasn't thinking it through completely. Let's say the genie will relocate them to anywhere in the world they want and provide any papers they might need to be there. It's starting to sound like a pretty nice genie, but remember you're still paying a very high price.

I don't think the answer is to calculate who has a better chance of doing anything meaningful with the years in question. It's to figure out how badly you want to help people.

Personally I want to ask the genie what happens if I give up more of my time than I'm ever going to have. Maybe my answer to #1 can be "all of them".

I am fine with sacrifice but not to the point you dick yourself over. Allow me to elaborate.

For one you dont really know about the pros or cons of helping one person over another. But there is the minor paradox that if you are the type of person to give up a huge chunk of your life to help someone you are probably also the type of person we want to keep around for as long as possible.

But if you screw yourself over for another, you dont get a net gain, you just take that persons place and as I said before you might have helped out someone thats good but you definitely hurt someone that was.

Just make an effort, like your drowning scenario, I wouldn't give up a chunk of my life for the guy, but I like to think I am the kind of guy to still jump in after him.

[Seil]

Cracked did a bit on this (http://www.cracked.com/video_18175_why-batman-secretly-terrible-gotham.html). Can we continue?

[Krylo]

Nah, we create super heroes because we wanna punch bullies in the face and impress chicks.

They're power fantasies, not moral ones.

[Seil]

Punching bullies is still an aspiration towards good, however misguided.

[Aerozord]

Punching bullies is still an aspiration towards good, however misguided.

I fully support any bully punching initiative. Their underdeveloped minds respond much better to very basic behavior modification.

bully someone, and I will hurt you.

nice and straight forward

[Krylo]

Punching bullies is still an aspiration towards good, however misguided.

Nah, see, stopping bullies is an aspiration toward good, but that's not really what it's about. It's a revenge/power fantasy of hurting the people who hurt you, and also all the male super heros get totally hot girlfriends because more male power fantasy.

Also: Batman is actually a pretty good example, 'cause even the character of Batman lives in a revenge power fantasy. Not that we need to beat it too much more, but I'm pretty sure that he's not really fighting Joker or Two Face or anyone else. In his head he's fighting the people who killed his parents. Which is why he's Batman instead of doing all the shit Katie said he should do in the Cracked thing.

It's all about power and revenge and hurting people who hurt you. Not really about being good people.

[Aerozord]

Nah, see, stopping bullies is an aspiration toward good, but that's not really what it's about. It's a revenge/power fantasy of hurting the people who hurt you, and also all the male super heros get totally hot girlfriends because more male power fantasy.

Also: Batman is actually a pretty good example, 'cause even the character of Batman lives in a revenge power fantasy. Not that we need to beat it too much more, but I'm pretty sure that he's not really fighting Joker or Two Face or anyone else. In his head he's fighting the people who killed his parents. Which is why he's Batman instead of doing all the shit Katie said he should do in the Cracked thing.

It's all about power and revenge and hurting people who hurt you. Not really about being good people.
I thought that Justice League episode where they got to the parallel universe, that Batman is both most supportive and least supportive of taking matters into their own hands and that at the end of the day there is no real victory.

Only way to stop crime through his methods is a police state, which while it would accomplish his goal at the end of the day just replaced fear of crime with a fear of crime fighters.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Superheroes are good but a 1930s everyone who is not me is a baddy good which is actually evil.
They dehumanise the enemy casting them as "villains" or "criminals" and thus it is correct to punish them, which is complete nonense.
Same with a "punching initiaive". You are not correcting the past, you are only dubiously preventing behaviour, what you are really ding is yuo just want to live out a revenge fetish

[Nique]

Nah, see, stopping bullies is an aspiration toward good, but that's not really what it's about. It's a revenge/power fantasy of hurting the people who hurt you, and also all the male super heros get totally hot girlfriends because more male power fantasy.

Also: Batman is actually a pretty good example, 'cause even the character of Batman lives in a revenge power fantasy. Not that we need to beat it too much more, but I'm pretty sure that he's not really fighting Joker or Two Face or anyone else. In his head he's fighting the people who killed his parents. Which is why he's Batman instead of doing all the shit Katie said he should do in the Cracked thing.

It's all about power and revenge and hurting people who hurt you. Not really about being good people.

I think Spider-Man is a good counter example to this though. I mean, his stories have the same explicit moral message in every incarnation.

I guess what I'm saying is that the empowerment fantasy is just one element to the modern superhero and that this ideal of moral goodness also contributes to their appeal. Like, they have the ability to revenge but (often) don't.

[Ecks]

It's usually the grittier heroes with the revenge schtick going on (Punisher, Batman, etc.) and most of the rest have at the very least some goal or ideal they work toward, no matter how futile or pointless it seems.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

They all solve their problems through liberal applications of violence. It doesn't matter if the character's epxplicit goal is "revenge" that';s what the superheroes represent as characters/

[Ecks]

Okay, so apparently actual law enforcement doesn't imply a threat of violence? They do all carry firearms or non-lethal means of incapacitation, all of which are violent. And aren't superheroes just fantasy law enforcement?

[Locke cole]

It depends. Some, like Captain America, are part of the armed forces or other government-sanctioned thing. And in some stories, some superheroes are organized into something like SHIELD.

Then there are guys like early-in-his-career Batman, who work alone and independent of the law. Those guys are vigilantes.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Okay, so apparently actual law enforcement doesn't imply a threat of violence? They do all carry firearms or non-lethal means of incapacitation, all of which are violent. And aren't superheroes just fantasy law enforcement?
The majority of policemen are also carrying out these revenge fetishes yes.
Like if we're going to rack up guys with good morales policemen are probably pretty low on that list.

[Ecks]

The majority of policemen are also carrying out these revenge fetishes yes.
Like if we're going to rack up guys with good morales policemen are probably pretty low on that list.

As long as we're keeping score, pretty much everyone is low on that list. In fact, finding anyone who'd be high on the list would take more time than just generalizing humanity as horrible in general.

[Krylo]

I think Spider-Man is a good counter example to this though. I mean, his stories have the same explicit moral message in every incarnation.

I guess what I'm saying is that the empowerment fantasy is just one element to the modern superhero and that this ideal of moral goodness also contributes to their appeal. Like, they have the ability to revenge but (often) don't.

UMzqvxXRXM4

[Ecks]

Holy shit, is that Toby McGuire? I haven't seen that movie in a long time. Almost like I forgot it existed.

Oh wait, I did.

[BitVyper]

In fairness, fuck movie Peter Parker. The movies missed everything that was good about his character.

[Fifthfiend]

UMzqvxXRXM4

Even allowing that Tobey Parkerman is shit this scene still doesn't prove what you want it to because the point even by the movie's shittacular terms is that Tobeyman tries to do the power fantasy thing and then God reaches down from heaven and kills his uncle to punish him leaving him no choice but to go out and stop muggers or else one of them will kill his uncle again.

[Krylo]

Except that doesn't actually matter. Every Super Hero has to be a Hero. It's part of the power fantasy. The adulation of the people, etc. Even Spider Man. Just because they gave him a reason to not just up and be a villain in the form of dead uncle doesn't make it any less "I've got super powers, beaten up bullies, and gettin' action with hot red heads" male power fantasy.

Spider Man is the worst for it, because he most resembles the kinds of fantasies that highschool kids that those comics were marketted to had when he was created. He's smart. So smart he makes fake webs with chemistry--because that's not the kind of thing nerdy high school kids fantasize about doing and see themselves as. Guy even lives with his Aunt. May as well be living at home with his parents.

The whole character of Peter Parker and Spider Man is designed around making the target audience resonate with him and receive catharsis through his exploits.

It's a power fantasy, and killing Uncle Ben doesn't make it less so.

Edit: I mean this isn't about whether Spider Man/Peter Parker is a good person. He is. It's about the fact that the entertainment medium of super hero stories are not about teaching moral lessons to children, even if that's an occasional secondary goal. It's an entertainment medium built on power fantasy. USUALLY male power fantasies. Which doesn't even make it BAD or WRONG or anything like that. There's a place for that kind of thing and super heroes are a good one.

It just makes it not what Seil was talking about.

[Aerozord]

ok I have another question. So you got inhuman powers, can you think of a better use for them other then fighting crime?

[BitVyper]

Except that doesn't actually matter. Every Super Hero has to be a Hero. It's part of the power fantasy. The adulation of the people, etc. Even Spider Man. Just because they gave him a reason to not just up and be a villain in the form of dead uncle doesn't make it any less "I've got super powers, beaten up bullies, and gettin' action with hot red heads" male power fantasy.

This works in the context of the movie, which is what you're talking about, but that's part of the reason why movie Parker is bullshit. The comics don't give him the same kind of justification for what he's doing - he acts like an enormous tool and is basically portrayed as acting like an enormous tool. In the movie, Peter lets a crook pass him by because he's legitimately pissed off at being screwed over (this also plays into the power fantasy, really), whereas in the comic he's just being a self centred, kinda cowardly douche.

AFTER Uncle Ben dies there's power fantasy elements there, yeah, but not really to the same degree as with other heroes. Obviously it varies from comic to comic, but Spiderman has always been kind of a grab bag of powers that are actually kind of shitty powers relative to the rest of the superheroing world. Even when compared to people less powerful than he is, he's not untouchable the same way. His quipping has often been shown to be how he deals with the pants-shitting terror of going out and fighting with sociopaths. And it makes his life hard - Pete doesn't get the same kind of handwave for other areas of his life that heroes do issue-to-issue (except when it's occasionally dramatic to show their life suffering). He's pretty clearly giving up a lot to do what he does.

[BitVyper]

ok I have another question. So you got inhuman powers, can you think of a better use for them other then fighting crime?

Taking out supervillains (since most of these guys did not become superheroes to fight supervillains, but to stop purse snatchers and such), almost definitely. Typical superhero crimefighting is among the worst, or the least efficient, things you can do with your powers. You're pretty much just going around punching the poor. In the case of someone like Spiderman, he's at least just trying to help victims as best he can. Batman though? Well, we've already been over that revenge-driven war on the lower classes many times before.

If you want a concrete example of something better to do with your super powers: Disaster relief or search and rescue work. Spiderman would be ridiculously awesome at these things, and he could save a lot more peopleif he devoted his efforts to them instead of just handling the occasional fire or collapsed building when he saw it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

ok I have another question. So you got inhuman powers, can you think of a better use for them other then fighting crime?

Use my powers to help end poverty, the key source of crime and also eradicated heaps of human misery and death in the process. It's just better on every level than going around punching poor unstable people.

[Loyal]

Well, there's this I suppose. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305#comic)

[Aerozord]

If you want a concrete example of something better to do with your super powers: Disaster relief or search and rescue work. Spiderman would be ridiculously awesome at these things, and he could save a lot more peopleif he devoted his efforts to them instead of just handling the occasional fire or collapsed building when he saw it.

Spiderman's powers dont include the capacity to quickly travel between cities, and fires/collapsing buildings aren't so common in New York for him to really do much.

Like you said he does help when he sees it, but the same can be said about crime. He basically wanders around and helps with whatever he can. Also remember part of his shtick is he wants to have an actual life outside his superheroing. I dont think there is anything wrong with this, I mean I dont devote my life to public services either.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Spiderman is a fucking supergenius. Stop going around punching the green goblin, go invent like cold fusion or someshit.
And like you'd save on lab equipment, protective gear.

[BitVyper]

Yeah like, imagine what you could use web fluid for. It's obviously incredibly cheap, since Peter Parker can afford to mix up tons, and small cartridges produce enough webbing to do things like catch traincars. Plus it dissolves on its own, so you don't even have to worry about accidentally trapping people.

Spiderman's powers dont include the capacity to quickly travel between cities, and fires/collapsing buildings aren't so common in New York for him to really do much.

Yeah, that's a big problem when you refuse to work with anyone else so that you can stay a vigilante. Rescue workers get airplanes and helicopters.

[Aerozord]

Spiderman is a fucking supergenius. Stop going around punching the green goblin, go invent like cold fusion or someshit.
And like you'd save on lab equipment, protective gear.
No he isn't, he's smart, but he isn't on the same level as say Reed Richards. Granted
Yeah like, imagine what you could use web fluid for. It's obviously incredibly cheap, since Peter Parker can afford to mix up tons, and small cartridges produce enough webbing to do things like catch traincars. Plus it dissolves on its own, so you don't even have to worry about accidentally trapping people.

that is true, but I was saying using their superpowers. What can you use enhanced reflexes, strength, etc for?

Yeah, that's a big problem when you refuse to work with anyone else so that you can stay a vigilante. Rescue workers get airplanes and helicopters.

Those aren't used to get between cities as a rule because normally in the time it would take to respond to a fire in another town anyone you'd be saving is already dead. Thats why fire stations are spread so they are only about ten or fifteen minutes from one another. Fact is if you cant reach the emergency within about 30 mins, save large scale disaster relief, you are already too late.

[Ecks]

That is true, but I was saying using their superpowers. What can you use enhanced reflexes, strength, etc for?

I don't know... go win the fucking Olympics?

[Doc ock rokc]

No he isn't, he's smart, but he isn't on the same level as say Reed Richards. GrantedReed is in the "Top seven super brains of marvel". so is Tony Stark and Hank Pym. both of which say Peter is Brilliant/smarter and is only stalled by the lack of materials he has.