You're right, of course. Just playing Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty!

However, when one reads Plato's Socratic Dialogues, especially Phaedo, one sees the closest attempt by anyone, i.e., Socrates, to use sheer moral authority to make the above inference valid.

None of those things follow logically from a 'right to death'(whatever that means)...does the winky bit at the end indicate that you know this and are just funnin'?

Edit: DAMMIT! Teach me to read to the end of the thread....!

Jeremy Nichols wrote: Using his powers to MAKE people PLAY NICE... How is that not forcing his good intentions on society? True, it's not bringing about a totalitarian regime...

But see Mark Millar's Elseworld's thought experiment: Red Son.

QUOTE: but it is forcing intent and his Kansas-bred morality. I'm not saying Superman's WRONG or EVIL to do this... but it's not RIGHT or GOOD either. It's relative.

Relative, eh? Will we open Pandora's box on this or not?

Oh, what the hell!

It's true to say that the modern consensus among left-leaning Western intellectuals has been that morality is a matter of relativity. This idea came about as a direct result of the evil perpetrated by totalitarian regimes like the Third Reich and Stalinist Russia. Both regimes claimed a monopoly on what was objectively right and wrong, and both rigorously eliminated anyone who thought otherwise. So the solution is to claim that right and wrong are relative, that no one holds a monopoly on either concept, and, therefore, there is no objective morality. Every moral act is relative to the individual performing it and the society to which he belongs. According to this argument Superman's morality is relative to himself and his Kansas upbringing, as you say.

The problem with the above, of course, is that there is no way to arbitrate between competing moral claims. If Lex Luthor thinks he's doing right, but Superman thinks he's doing wrong and beats Lex, was he right to do so? On the above account, no, because there is no way to decide between Luthor's claim and Superman's claim to be in the right. What we have, then, is a situation where 'might makes right'.

Is that an acceptable conclusion? Right and wrong are relative, so the only virtue is to be successful, and the only way to be successful is to be better than the other guy. That's pretty bleak.

Jeremy Nichols wrote: Let's say that the "Left Behind" fundamentalist Christian perspective of the end of the world took place in the DCU. God enacts final vengeance on the earth. Which side would Superman (and the rest of the JLA) take? He's spent years protecting humanity, and here some otherworldly "threat" comes along to finish the game... Personally, I think Superman, Batman, and definitely Wonder Woman would, morally, have to FIGHT GOD. Where's objective morality in that scenario? Which side would be right?

Interesting thought experiment, Jeremy.

Superman first. If the Rapture took place, Superman would be one of the Elect. How do we know he's Elect? He's a good guy, so he's Elect. That's Calvin's logic.

Batman second. Hard to say whether Batman's Elect or Reprobate. I'm inclined to think Batman would say 'non serviam' and, thus, damn himself. In which case, he would, indeed, find himself battling God. Unfortunately, for him, he's going to lose that fight and wind up in hell.

Wonder Woman last. Wonder Woman worships the Greek pantheon, so she breaks the First Commandment, so she chooses to battle God along with the entire Greek pantheon. They lose because Zeus is subject to necessity and so subject to the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish God) who is omnipotent and, thus, not subject to necessity. Wonder Woman is thus damned with Batman.

The objective morality would lie in the fact that God is good, so He cannot do evil, so whatever He does do, i.e., damning Batman and Wonder Woman is not evil, and anyone who thinks otherwise is suffering from a severe of what the Greeks called hybris or fundamentalists call pride! ;-) 

It's the logical thing to do! ;-)

Jeremy Nichols wrote: Everything in the universe is doomed to failure in its goal of perfection. Is that bleak, or is it just truth?

Aristotle and Aquinas would argue otherwise. According to those two gentlemen teleology guarantees that everything in the universe strives to reach the goal of perfection. Granted, in some cases, circumstances conspire to thwart that achievement, and both Aristotle and Aquinas consider this to amount to a privation of perfection, which they otherwise refer to as an evil. But if the acorn grows into an oak tree, then it has achieved its goal, and, thus, achieved perfection.

What it is for a man to achieve his final goal of perfection is another matter. Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics claims that man's highest goal is the contemplation of the first principle of the universe, that is, God; but he admits it's difficult for a mere mortal to long sustain such exalted thoughts, so he concedes that the second greatest thing a man can do to achieve perfection is act ethically and engage in politics to become an active force for good in the wise governance of a just community. Aquinas agrees with his master, but qualifies the first perfection with the revelation that the contemplation of God, that is, the beatific vision, will be sustainable in the next life when God will guarantee justice in the heavenly city of the New Jerusalem.

*Whew* 

Ian Evans wrote: But then who decides the parameters of your objective morality?  If we do not have a superior being to arbitrate (God-and I would argue that we don't) then what to whom do we turn?  The answer is of course other people, and the answers will be different depending upon which group or individual you consult...meaning that objective morality is unattainable...

Nietzsche agrees with you, Ian. His point in the Gay Science is that when one realises that God is dead, there is a problem because the objective arbiter of what is good and bad is gone, so there is no longer any guide as to what is right or wrong. What to do then? Famously, Nietzsche argues that one has to go beyond good and evil, that is, one asserts the will to power to become whatever one wants to be. When God is dead, life is no longer about vice or virtue; it is about style. The Ubermensch in himself is the sole affirmation of his own lifestyle. He is his own shifting standard, and there is no one to gainsay him.

Familiar stuff. Nietzsche was the prophet of the modern world.