Types of Superheroes: Heroes Who Kill vs. Those Who Don't

When it comes to the preferred type of superhero, there are two major categories: those who are willing to kill to stop evil, and those who adhere to a strict code of not killing, even when it's necessary. In my view, a hero should not unnecessarily kill, but if it is necessary to remove an evil presence to save lives, then they should not hesitate.

Preferences for Non-Killing Heroes

There are several superheroes I admire for their principles and methods of not killing, even when it's seemingly necessary. Characters like Colossus and Riptide, who have a moral code against unnecessary violence, stand out. For instance, Colossus, who uses his strength and skills to subdue rather than kill, is a great example of a hero who prioritizes life. Similarly, Alfred Pennyworth, ex-MI6 operative and trusted butler to Bruce Wayne, shows that even former soldiers can choose a path of honor and protection rather than violence.

Heroes like Captain America and Spider-Man also follow a code that refrains from killing. Spider-Man often tries to rehabilitate his villains, such as the Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus, rather than taking their lives. In the case of Vulture from Spider-Man: Homecoming, while he was involved in criminal activities, his primary motivations were his family and his determination to provide for them. By not killing Vulture, Spider-Man aims to leave a door open for redemption, ensuring that he is not forever destroying potential for change.

Batman, another non-lethal hero, adheres to a moral code that includes helping others, even his villains. His goal is to be a symbol of hope, offering the possibility of rehabilitation. It is this philosophy that drives Batman to avoid killing, even when faced with extremely evil individuals who show no signs of change.

Heroes Who Aren't Afraid to Kill

On the other side of the spectrum, there are heroes who are willing to take drastic actions to ensure the safety of the public. Iron Man, for example, faces villains who are not only dangerous but also destructive, such as those who have nearly destroyed the world. In such cases, it makes sense that he would be willing to take lethal action. The Jokers, with their pure evil and heinous crimes, also justify the need for heroes like Tony Stark to dismantle their operations to protect innocent lives.

It is also important to recognize that accidental deaths during self-defense or to protect loved ones should not be frowned upon. These actions are driven by a hero's commitment to safeguarding others. For instance, inducting a villain into custody or protecting loved ones in a situation where a life might be lost due to the villain's actions is a necessary and morally justifiable act.

Conclusion

In my opinion, it is more important to focus on rehabilitation and the potential for good, even in the face of extreme evil. But when the line between saving lives and applying a moral code is blurred, as in the case of villains who are pure evil and show no signs of change, then taking lethal action becomes necessary. The key is finding the balance between non-lethal and lethal methods of stopping evil, ensuring that innocent lives are protected and that the potential for change is not completely squashed.