Ask Lemmy

Just don't get lost in the Sauce. That was the problem with death note. Keep it subtle and set boundaries.

Looks up social control theory. It basically argues that we all are well behaved because we worry about the social consequences of our bad actions. You remove social control. The moral behaviours goes out the window. It’s pretty well supported framework for understanding human behaviour.

My morals would go out the 'Robin Hood' door.

Not really - if the only thing stopping you from doing bad things is power, you're a bad person inherently.

You have the power to stop time.
🐵🐾 It stops for you, too.

For some I’m sure that’s the case and would behave pretty remorselessly.

Others have a conscience.

Others still would engage in shitty behavior but probably destroy themselves pretty quickly dealing with the mental problems of doing what they know is shitty.

Be honest? Yeah, I’d do stuff I shouldn’t. But nothing I couldn’t sleep at night over. But one thing I know I’d do is find some way to bring down everyone fucking over regular people. Even if it’s as simple as stopping time, placing a recording device in a boardroom, and letting it record them plotting to fuck over whoever, and then retrieving it for public display.

Don’t know how much good it would do.

I would die of old age immediately

Uh… no they wouldn’t.

This is an idea that has been around for very long time. Plato used the Ring of Gyges to talk about it - which went on to inspire Wells' The Invisible Man - and influenced Tolkien among others.

Not really, because you wouldn't be able to see anything or hear anything if time stops. Even light particles would stop moving, and your eyes would just see flashes of light as you move through space.

Finally some time to read

Everyone in this thread, "what's this, I am a bastion of morality and its extremely important I convince anons on the internet about this."

But for real when I dream about stopping time I dream of a pocket universe where I am the only person present. That way I can speed (I know I know I'm evil) on highways, explore, and learn without weird frozen bodies getting in my way. I would mostly use it for naps and cheating on tests (I know super evil).

No, they wouldn’t. Because real life isn’t like superhero shows.

I have a theory that moral traits, like many other things in nature, follow a normal distribution. If I'm right, we can make some estimates of who would violate social rules given the chance. The bottom 5% of the distribution are going to do some terrible things. About 45% are going to be kind of shit, maybe not terrible. The remainder will be some level of decent to pretty well behaved, actually. Admittedly, that depends on what we think the mean level of morality really is. Having observed many a group of kids playing, I don't think it's that bad. Honestly that's why so many teenage edgelords and doomers get told to go touch grass; reality will almost never be as bleak as we think it will be. There's a well documented cognitive bias towards negative events, but it IS a bias.

The Boys isn't realistic so much as it's a deliberate deconstruction of the genre and a bit of speculative fiction ("What if Superman was a sociopath" seems to be the question it asks). It has elements of satire too, so it's not really concerned with being fair so much as creating the story conditions that allow it to show us its narrative.

If you want a more "realistic" superhero show I think the 2012 movie Chronicle is more plausible. And yeah it does go badly for some but not for others.

I can totally agree with the whole with great power comes great immorality way of thinking.

But I view it in the adaptation angle. Like, how many "average" people can adapt to such a huge shift in power? Pro athletes tend to have bad spending habits because of sudden shifts of wealth. Country laws and legislations stay for generations because the lawmakers are stuck to their own bubbles of how things are progressing.

Being able to adapt is a general trait for people, but not everybody can do it as quickly. I think that part causes conflicts that may or may not lead to immorality.

I've felt similarly ever since watching the movie Clockstoppers as a kid

About Time is a pretty wholesome movie about a man that can go back in time at any point in his life.

In classic philosophy, this is the Ring of Gyges, in which Plato suggests that we'd be tempted to wrongdoing if we had the capacity to evade harmful consequences.

In 21st century moral philosophy, it's more complicated than that. What we do with super-powers depends largely on our need. Normally, someone doesn't steal resources when they have the means to attain them legitimately, but it's our precarity or even poverty and hunger that drives us to steal, largely due to a society that recognizes property rights without assuring the safety and provisions of those who, well, don't have any property. Precarity leads to renegade behavior, or as our states like to call it crime. ^†^

So what happens when our ring-wearer finds themselves no longer in desperate need for stuff. This is the point of opportunity, where they can choose to use their power to rescue others from their misfortune, or they can isolate themselves from the squalor and bask in their own luxury.

One of the terrible secrets of moral philosophy is that no code of ethics, no religious commandment really matters. Most of us do what we feel like anyway, whether right and well meaning or wrongful and malicious. It just happens that we're generally affable. That is, eons of evolution have instilled us with social values and the drive to engage peaceably when we're not starving, and as such we allow total strangers to merge into our lane in traffic and try to telegraph our actions to keep other drivers at ease. When we're well fed, healthy, warm, well rested and getting laid once in a while, we're pretty easy to get along with. Keep a whole society in precarity, however, and it turns into social unrest and eventually civil war.

But then, when we're driven by fear, we tend to think of others in antagonistic terms. Our billionaires have the capacity to improve society on a global scale. Musk or Bloomberg could adopt Haiti and drive the nation into industrial development, and have his statue in bronze adorn every state park countrywide. Not big on that opportunity? $30 Billion will feed the world (That is, all the humans in it) including processing and freight. Less than that could create a free high-speed WiFi internet infrastructure that covers all populated parts of the world (Including Mt. Everest, but not much of the Himalayas).

But none of them do. Not one billionaire is thinking about their legacy on this scale. Rather, they're all very miserly with their charitable works, and then engage in them only for marketing and tax-haven purposes. Considering how consistent billionaires are about this, the Ring of Gyges may be that corrupting an influence after all.

Superhero narratives are typically about a desperate need and someone with the means to fulfill it in daring fashion. OSP noted The Scarlett Pimpernel who rescued aristocrats from the guillotine during the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. (Superheroes are not always on the side of aging well). When someone has super-powers and acts in a more immoral fashion, we regard them instead as monsters. Case in point, Count Dracula or The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

SPIRIT: This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom
SCROOGE: Have they no refuge or resource?
SPIRIT:〈mocking Scrooge〉Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

† I generally avoid using the word crime unless talking specifically about things that are illegal as decided by regional law. Many acts of wrongdoing are not criminal. Many crimes are not immoral. Same with sin which are proscriptions according to religious institutions.

That is actually wrong. Countries with death penalty and free weapon carrying show that both assertions are wrong.

If course you need the power to commit a crime in order to commit it. But most people who have the power don't commit crimes.

Society didn't appear out of nowhere. And crimes are a much more complex matter than "can I do it without consequences"

I feel like the average asshole would steal, probably trespass in Area 51, or the White House or whatever. In the former case if you steal from a big enough place its effectively a victimless crime. In the latter, you're just not supposed to be there, so even less in the way of real victims.

Murder though? Thats when stuff gets real. I feel like no matter your stance everyone has a person or people they'd have to think long and hard about not taking out of the equation, whether for personal reasons or to make the world an overall better place in their opinion. Doubt most would even consequence free but some (not so) subtle influence here and there would likely happen.

Also if you're a comic guy, give Irredeemable a go. It's the same vein of plot as The Boys and Invincible.

I imagine a lot of people would end up like homelander. Only playing the superhero role to get likes or feel loved but being very evil when no one would know.

Personally, I think I would give the superhero thing a go as I do like helping people, but very likely I'd end up like Red Son or Injustice Superman. It would depend on the powers and if other supes exist, but it is very believable to end up going to extremes to just try and make the world a "better" place if no one could stop me. What's a few lives here or there when you believe you are saving so many more?

I'd pause time, slap people acting a fool, go back to what I was doing, and unpause.

People don't need super powers for that, it's so easy. Crack open the way for the ego drug and they do anything. Nobody is immune. The "holier" the person, the easier it is.