To first understand the character of Superman, you must understand his origins. Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Superman hails from a mysterious planet named “Krypton” that is presently and literally coming apart at its seams. A small child is placed into a rocket by his parents in a last ditch effort to save him from the doomed planet. The rocket hurtles through space eventually landing on planet Earth, where it is discovered by a Kansas farming couple, the Kents. The child is given the name Clark Kent and is taught to do what is right and use his incredible superhuman powers to serve humanity. As Clark grows, his powers develop, allowing him the ability to fly, run at incredible speeds, implement x-ray and heat vision, exhale icy blasts, lift tremendous weights and making him invulnerable to nearly any kind of physical harm. Clark, when older, moved to the big city of Metropolis where he assumes two identities: Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet newspaper and Superman, super powered defender of truth, justice and the American way. Should the secret identity be uncovered however, Clark Kent’s life and loved ones would surely be at risk, so Clark must live secretly but also do everything under his power to aid mankind.
Now that the basics of the character have been introduced, the basics of ethics must also be brought up to properly introduce and to fully understand what I will be trying to prove. The main concept considered by philosophers is summed up in this phrase; “what should exist?” To understand ethics, you must question whether a person’s actions would exist in a perfect world. If the actions wouldn’t fit the perfect world, it is not an ethical action. This determination comes from the universalization theory by philosopher Kant.
First off, you must do an action to do a moral action. If Lex Luthor threw Lois Lane off a building and Superman did nothing to save her, this would surely make him immoral. So the fact that Superman does go through with the action makes a good case already that he is moral.
Superman’s proclaimed ethos for doing good with his superhuman powers is to defend truth, justice and the American way, but is there any way to know what anyone’s true motives are? Philosopher Kant wrote, “An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which the action is determined.” With this said, no one could ever be exactly sure that a deed done was done purely out of the goodness of doing the act. Could Superman’s incentive for doing good deeds be for the popularity he receives from the inhabitants of Metropolis? This is a very possible conclusion since the people look up to Superman as almost a god-like protector. This praise could easily go to someone’s head. Like a doctor who gets caught up in saving lives, Superman might do the same instead of doing good acts for the good acts themselves, which is the only ethical way to do anything.
This is a possibility, but with such impressive and imposing powers, Superman could easily have used his abilities for evil. Instead of helping defend the innocent, he could very easily destroy them. With the ability to overthrow countries and take out armies without breaking a sweat, he instead chooses to dedicate his life to fight a never-ending battle against evil, thus Superman displays he has strong moral fiber.
Another element to morality, according to Kant, is that if a person didn’t develop their skills fully, you were not a moral person. Kant wrote, “For as a rational being he necessarily wills that all his faculties should be developed, inasmuch as they are given him for all sorts of possible purposes.” Since the sun of Krypton was red and much more oppressive than the Earth’s yellow sun, this kept the incredible powers of Superman hidden. When under the much less harsh rays of the yellow sun, Superman’s powers began to manifest themselves in many fantastic forms. This is another situation like the example of not ever really knowing what a person’s true motives are in doing a certain action. How would anyone know of all the talents they possess? There is no manual that comes with us when we are born. We all have talents in every single aspect of life and since we cannot possibly experience every aspect of life, we couldn’t discover every possible talent we have. I feel that if you put a diligent effort into discovering what you can do, this is a moral act. This aspect of self-improvement is definitely within the character of Superman, since he clearly has a great deal of fantastic powers along with regular human talents as well.
So it is now established Superman is a moral character, but there are a great deal of significant choices and responsibilities to be made by the man as it is with all moral beings. One big problem facing Superman is that accidents and threats rarely occur at convenient intervals. If, at the same moment, there is a tsunami that’s threatening to destroy a village in Thailand and Brainiac is attacking downtown Metropolis, where does he start? He could unquestionably deal with either of these, but which should he choose to address? Would the closer choice be better? Which is the more serious problem? Which of these situations threatens more lives? These choices, especially since they would have to be made in a matter of seconds or less, are extremely tough ones. I feel a moral choice would be doing one of them, but for a man with seemingly infinite powers, is there some possible way he could solve both problems?
The moral situation would be solving one of these situations, since it is impossible for someone to be in two places at once, no matter how skilled and powerful that person might be. He can only use his abilities to solve one of these. Being moral isn’t being perfect everywhere, it is being as perfectly good as possible where you are and in a specific position. If he were not to address either, both events would have occurred, so Superman, in doing one action, does all he could to stop as much grievance as possible. If Superman does all he can to the extent of his abilities, he is a good moral being.
Lastly, say Superman does save Metropolis from an attack by Brainiac, and an apartment building is structurally damaged beyond repair in the process. The people lose a great deal, all their possessions and they must find a new place to live. This would surely cause its tenants a lot of pain and grief, so does this affect the morality of the act of defeating Brainiac? This falls under the utilitarian theory of philosopher John Stuart Mill. Mill wrote, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others.” Though these people have a great deal of inconveniences in their life now, there certainly would be a tremendous amount more to burden if Brainiac had succeeded in destroying the entire city.
Clearly, through all of the cases and conditions, Superman is obviously a moral character. He helps those who cannot help themselves and to the best of his abilities does all he can to stop the spread of suffering in Metropolis region and around the world.