|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Not sure about that. Lois literally saves Superman's life, and Superman sacrifices his life and restores the world's faith in heroes out of his love for Lois. Are you referring to the opening in africa? How Superman's intervention to save her compromises that region and his own image, while also compromising Lois' journalistic integrity? I can see that, but Superman's love for Lois makes him more human(in a good way) and Lois love for Superman makes her more... I'll be honest I'm not sure what she gets out of the relationship other than the ultimate bodyguard, but it is definitely a good thing for Clark.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Equeen posted:If Granny Goodness does appear, I hope she's a bizarre combination of Divine and Betty White.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Is Ed Asner even ambulatory at this point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I want it to be Ed Asner in drag Yes, please. Goddamn what perfect voice casting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
greatn posted:Not sure about that. Lois literally saves Superman's life, and Superman sacrifices his life and restores the world's faith in heroes out of his love for Lois. Are you referring to the opening in africa? How Superman's intervention to save her compromises that region and his own image, while also compromising Lois' journalistic integrity? I can see that, but Superman's love for Lois makes him more human(in a good way) and Lois love for Superman makes her more... I'll be honest I'm not sure what she gets out of the relationship other than the ultimate bodyguard, but it is definitely a good thing for Clark. I'm actually referring specifically to the bathtub scene, which is given a taboo, incestuous kind of subtext. The union of man and God is what produces the monstrous baby-thing at the end of the film, and Superman has to give up his marriage to Lois to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:It's almost like objects of power exist in all forms of fiction. Wow. Gee golly. Yeah, it's cliche. It's a trope. That's what I don't like about it. I think it's funny though that people seem to be confused how I could possibly compare it to the tesseract, another glowy box of indeterminate power that everyone wants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Equeen posted:If Granny Goodness does appear, I hope she's a bizarre combination of Divine and Betty White. Harvey Fierstein?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is painfully unfunny. I'm looking forward to CineD's massive praise of Justice League's jokes, though. Somehow they'll all be better and smarter than Marvel's "quips."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'm actually referring specifically to the bathtub scene, which is given a taboo, incestuous kind of subtext. The union of man and God is what produces the monstrous baby-thing at the end of the film, and Superman has to give up his marriage to Lois to stop it. But for kryptonians all sex was viewed as taboo and incestuous, and that view was the reason they went extinct and their society fell. What Lex is doing is trying to ape kryptonians methodology with his own DNA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Yeah, it's cliche. It's a trope. That's what I don't like about it. I think it's funny though that people seem to be confused how I could possibly compare it to the tesseract, another glowy box of indeterminate power that everyone wants.  I'm afraid you're railing at the heavens with this one. SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'm actually referring specifically to the bathtub scene, which is given a taboo, incestuous kind of subtext. The union of man and God is what produces the monstrous baby-thing at the end of the film, and Superman has to give up his marriage to Lois to stop it. I know you're really into the idea that love for a particular person is unethical, but that's also a really misogynistic moral impulse that has its roots in the denigration of the "female" act of caring for children (which by its nature, has to be particular) and rejection of the limitations placed on masculine freedom entailed by parental responsibility. It's such an old idea that the I Ching already moved beyond it roughly 5000 years ago by tempering the demands of the sage as the ideal person who placed himself outside worldly concerns with the subsidiary ideal of the Chun Tzu, the "superior man" who embodies ethical action without abandoning earthly ties such as responsibility to his or her own family. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
greatn posted:But for kryptonians all sex was viewed as taboo and incestuous, and that view was the reason they went extinct and their society fell. What Lex is doing is trying to ape kryptonians methodology with his own DNA. But at the same time, the eternal romantic 'partnership' that "Lois & Clark" represents is tethered to an extremely privatized and even formalized notion of 'love.' Within this formula, the ultimate consequence of reproduction is insipidly ignored, leading to satirical Playboy articles about how either Superman is totally impotent or having sex will literally kill Lois. Beavis just frankly foregrounds the fact of a happy sex life between two cosmopolitans, but pre- and post-coitus the pre-eminent concern isn't what the world thinks of Clark, or what the news thinks of Clark, but about how Lois feels about Clark's personal obligations towards her, and vice versa. From Clark's perspective, Beavis is about realizing 'the personal is political,' that if Lois really means the world to him - and not just in the way of cliche, condescending chivalry - then he will put the world ahead of the fantasy for their eternal relationship... Let's face it, maybe one day that spontaneous, romantic moment in Man of Steel finally flares out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I'm afraid you're railing at the heavens with this one. I'm not sure why people feel the need to reference 20 year old plotlines as if that somehow defends the fact that its cliche. In Pulp Fiction in particular, that box added nothing and could have been removed with no changes to the movie at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Clark would not be capable of being Superman with Lois' continual influence on him. I thought the movie made that abundantly clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:Clark would not be capable of being Superman with Lois' continual influence on him. I thought the movie made that abundantly clear. Exactly, but with great power comes great responsibility, which means that the bedrock of 'family' is not the greatest value. Clark's ghost dad appears before him and warns him about this through a parable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I'm not sure why people feel the need to reference 20 year old plotlines as if that somehow defends the fact that its cliche. In Pulp Fiction in particular, that box added nothing and could have been removed with no changes to the movie at all. The briefcase never being explained in Pulp Fiction is a joke, and the movie would have changed in it would have had one less entertaining joke in it. In general, though, you appear to be complaining about the basic existence of objects of importance in film, considering we have no idea what a motherbox is going to actually mean in the context of Justice League.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
greatn posted:But for kryptonians all sex was viewed as taboo and incestuous, and that view was the reason they went extinct and their society fell. What Lex is doing is trying to ape kryptonians methodology with his own DNA. It's an altogether different situation; what Lex and Clark do is directly equated. Lex's blood-mixing is specifically prohibited under Kryptonian law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I'm not sure why people feel the need to reference 20 year old plotlines as if that somehow defends the fact that its cliche. In Pulp Fiction in particular, that box added nothing and could have been removed with no changes to the movie at all. Maybe. It has a certain amount of intrinsic appeal that a more (edit: or more to the point, less) straightforward MacGuffin would lack; enough that it was the first thing I thought of. It was also a direct reference to an earlier noir, Kiss Me Deadly. Even if it were replaced in Pulp Fiction with some other reason for characters to act in the same way, that reason would still be a MacGuffin. That's why I'm saying you're railing at the heavens; the element you are complaining about is just a basic element of storytelling, identifying it as a trope is incredibly superficial as criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's an altogether different situation; what Lex and Clark do is directly equated. Lex's blood-mixing is specifically prohibited under Kryptonian law. It would be interesting if BvS were taking a stand against miscegenation, but I'm not sure that's actually what's going on there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Exactly, but with great power comes great responsibility, which means that the bedrock of 'family' is not the greatest value. It reminds me of Godzilla '14 in that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I hope the first thing you see coming out of a boom tube is Granny Goodness. I honestly thought we'd at least get a Glorious Godfrey cameo in BvS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:It would be interesting if BvS were taking a stand against miscegenation, but I'm not sure that's actually what's going on there. It's not anti-miscegenation. It's more like this dumb thought that I end up finding myself earnestly having every once and a while: "You know, really, the only solution to all these race problems in America is for people to relentlessly intermarry. Maybe even communism forcing neighborhoods to desegregate, tax-benefiting the licensing of interracial marriage," whatever. The point is that I'm intentionally ignoring the entire political root of racism: That even if we try to eradicate cultural opposition by just loving each other into an 'interstitial,' synthetic group, we are nonetheless only unifying ourselves in a new cultural hegemony where the private sphere of the family and the capitalist individual operates on the level of preeminent moral concern. This will just lead to a new mono-culture, which will in turn have to resort to 'incest' in order to maintain its superficial multicultural identity. The exclusionary cultural paradigm is maintained intrinsically, leading inevitably to stagnation and apocalypse. Furthermore, the subaltern continues to suffer disproportionately for the errors of Western supremacy. Tezcatlipoca posted:It reminds me of Godzilla '14 in that way. They are both quite good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The briefcase never being explained in Pulp Fiction is a joke, and the movie would have changed in it would have had one less entertaining joke in it. Why the gently caress would Vince and Jules even be in the movie if briefcase wasn't there? That's like half the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Why the gently caress would Vince and Jules even be in the movie if briefcase wasn't there? That's like half the movie. Well, they could have kept all the dialog about how they insulted Marsellus Wallace and just never clarified that the insult involved the case. It still would have been a McGuffin of sorts, even vaguer in that alternative, but at least it wouldn't have involved that most cliched of things, an object.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:It's not anti-miscegenation. It's more like this dumb thought that I end up finding myself earnestly having every once and a while: "You know, really, the only solution to all these race problems in America is for people to relentlessly intermarry. Maybe even communism forcing neighborhoods to desegregate, tax-benefiting the licensing of interracial marriage," whatever. Maybe. That doesn't quite push the analysis to the point where it clarifies what the parallel between Lois and Clark getting frisky in the bathtub and Lex creating Doomsday is actually getting at, though. I mean, they certainly are meant to be read as a parallel of sorts. Like Lex' disregard for the consequences of creating Doomsday (his own death) is definitely congruent with Clark's disregard for the consequences of jumping into the tub (flooding the bathroom). I'm not sure that they're meant as equivalent, though; they could just as easily be meant as a contrast. At this point in the story, without Lois, Superman risks becoming Dr. Manhattan. But jumping into the tub and ruining the floor is close to an inversion of Dr. Manhattan working on his science project while also loving Laurie. He's consciously choosing to only think about Lois and putting aside all concerns but their moment together, rather than his mind being literally elsewhere on something ostensibly more important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Exactly, but with great power comes great responsibility, which means that the bedrock of 'family' is not the greatest value. Are you guys talking about Batman vs. Superman? 'cuz it sounds a lot more interesting than I thought. Everyone else I know just said it was absolute poo poo. But I don't see why it's Superman's responsibility to police the world. He was born with gifts true but so are a lot of people. Is every super genius in the world obligated to use that genius to try and cure cancer or provide economic relief or partake in some humanitarian crusade? I don't think so. If a man with a huge IQ and all the potential in the world just ants to settle down with a family, no one can stop or blame him. Also, if you are going to turn to Superman in times of crises, why not just have him truly control the world? I mentioned Red Son earlier and I love that comic because Superman finally stopped indulging in half-measures. Rather than simply stopping problems when they arose, he preemptively put an end to all problems. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:It would be interesting if BvS were taking a stand against miscegenation, but I'm not sure that's actually what's going on there. It's not against miscegenation but, rather, the vulgar logic of midichlorians - or the testing of God's DNA in Prometheus. The point is that the true God is not this. Superman-worship is idolatry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Are you guys talking about Batman vs. Superman? 'cuz it sounds a lot more interesting. Everyone else I know jus tsaid it was absolute poo poo. Actually, we are all obligated, within our abilities, no matter our particular strengths and weaknesses, to help others before ourselves. Clark isn't a 'special case,' but his 'god-like' power comes not from his superficial strengths but from his self-sacrificial, universal love. And, yeah, it was good. Haven't seen Ultimate Cut yet, but it looks metal. Hodgepodge posted:Maybe. That doesn't quite push the analysis to the point where it clarifies what the parallel between Lois and Clark getting frisky in the bathtub and Lex creating Doomsday is actually getting at, though. I mean, they certainly are meant to be read as a parallel of sorts. Like Lex' disregard for the consequences of creating Doomsday (his own death) is definitely congruent with Clark's disregard for the consequences of jumping into the tub (flooding the bathroom). I'm not sure that they're meant as equivalent, though; they could just as easily be meant as a contrast. I mean, I think maybe you're ignoring the obvious parallel between Clark descending into the tub for sexy times with Lois and Lex descending into the pool of the Kryptonian ship because it's too obvious, but considered alongside of Clark's explicit internal monologue with his father over how he has responsibilities that go beyond his solipsistic family, it bares re-emphasizing just how completely un-subtle Snyder is as a point of pride. Notice how the phallic and womb imagery is also inverted here? Yes, Lois helps Clark to feel like 'a real man,' like Laurie does for Dr. Manhattan, but the point in both is that this sentimental feeling isn't enough! The film isn't condemning the spontaneous emotion of love or the potential it has to mold us as individuals, but it's deliberately mapping out a scenario of how this leads to complacency, or 'goes too far.' As Tezcatlipoca says, it's very much like Godzilla, except now Lois and Clark are the imminent American nuclear family, which is both sympathetic and 'innocent', but requires a clairvoyant "sword" to drive them apart so that the planet isn't consumed by its comorbid, ideological values. It's like, yes, Lois helps Clark get the spear to avert Doomsday, but this is explicitly framed as her helping him to fulfill a prophecy bigger than their personal interests, in which Superman must die, in which their relationship must draw to a close indefinitely, maybe to be united again in some fanciful heaven or sequel, but with the point being obviously that such superficial faith in otherworldly reward is incidental to the more direct dilemma solved, which is the violation of universal human rights through Luthor's work. This comes up in the movie, this idea that Clark doesn't see or hear things because he's now past the stage where he has to block his powers from harming him. Now he can use it at his own convenience, ignoring literal terrorists in the room, deciding if and when he is 'morally obligated' to intervene. This terrifies him, rightfully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Well, they could have kept all the dialog about how they insulted Marsellus Wallace and just never clarified that the insult involved the case. It still would have been a McGuffin of sorts, even vaguer in that alternative, but at least it wouldn't have involved that most cliched of things, an object. You're solution to a McGuffin is just being more vague and less specific? I don't see that being an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Actually, we are all obligated, within our abilities, no matter our particular strengths and weaknesses, to help others before ourselves. Clark isn't a 'special case,' but his 'god-like' power comes not from his superficial strengths but from his self-sacrificial, universal love. Obligated by who or what? I'm not some "but muh freedom!" type but I don't think there's anything in the world forcing anyone to use their talents for the benefit of society as a whole. A person who wants to "coast" through life, or to simply raise a small family and be content, is perfectly entitled to do as such. What you're preaching is some sort of fascist state ( actual fascism, not the political slur) where the individual exists for the State and not the other way around as it is in modern Western nations where people are taught that they are the center of the world. The Superman Origin is great because there's so much you can do and say with it. What you're saying sounds a lot like Red Son and Supreme Power. In those "what-ifs" Superman (or a Marvel analogue in Hyperion) are raised to think that they exist for others. Red Son Superman is a tool of Soviet Communism and exists to bring a utopia to all across Earth. Supreme Power Hyperion is taken away from his kindly farmer family and raised to be a tool of American nationalism so he can bring freedom to the world. Both stories have our godlike hero indoctrinated with thoughts of serving the world and it backfires spectacularly. I think the truth is that a person has to want to serve society. You can't force some humanitarian mindset on them. Trying to make Superman be an absolutely altruistic, self-sacrificing hero by force is just a bad idea. If he wants to piss off and lay on a beach, please let him. In any event, I will be adding BvS to my list of superhero movies to watch now. Thank you for the intriguing analysis and discussion. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Obligated by who or what? I'm not some "but muh freedom!" type but I don't think there's anything in the world forcing anyone to use their talents for the benefit of society as a whole. A person who wants to "coast" through life, or to simply raise a small family and be content, is perfectly entitled to do as such. What you're preaching is some sort of fascist state ( actual fascism, not the political slur) where the individual exists for the State and not the other way around as it is in modern Western nations where people are taught that they are the center of the world. What I'm reading is beyond mere altruism, and, indeed, beyond nationhood. In Beavis, at the film's conclusion, Diana Prince very notably calls attention to the fact that Superman is only buried with patriotic fervor because this is merely the primary means that the United States, as a unconsciously self-conscious nation, has of remembering his sacrifice - as defending the 'true state' from the abominable Other, as being a 'fallen soldier' even though he was literally nuked himself. The movie does everything in its power to draw a contrast between the enormity of Clark's moral potential and the persistent cynicism of the world around him, most evidently in the news media and the reactionary right effigy of Superman, racism by blaming him for what 'his people' did, etc. When you ask, 'who or what' should obligate us, my answer is, "God, you silly-goose." Obviously, only we can be held accountable for if we decide the world is greater than ourselves. Clark's superficial powers are just metaphors for our own moral potential, that we can perform miracles and transcend arbitrary political, social, and cultural barriers with the faith of a mustard seed. Like, first obviously I'll advise you to see the movie, because that's the subject a reading of which I'm debating, but notice how we've already gone from this question of whether Clark as a person is obligated to help the world over preserving his personal privilege and happiness, to the even more cynical stumbling block where we're like, "Oh, but what if people really do just wanna gently caress off and disconnect from the world, concluding that there is nothing 'material' motivating them to perform radical good, shouldn't we let them? Aren't we better off?" What you mean is, "Shouldn't we let ourselves be selfish if it's really what's natural to us?" The answer is, "What you conceive of as 'natural' is a fantasy. The 'natural' doesn't come into it, we're talking about what's true and good." This cynicism is also inevitably suicidal, both personally and politically: "Isn't the world better off without me, because I am essentially this way?" The answer is, "No. You are loved and valued." It's not enough to say that there's a moral standard, but, you know, the individual has the inalienable right to choose. It's the other way around - Of course you have the right to choose, that's the banality of evil. But the moral standard doesn't exist just so we can have the comfort of saying there's a moral standard. It needs to be enforced somehow, and on the personal-political level, it requires a decisive switch in our thinking. To use the pop cliche between the two queer rock idols: "Why can't we give love? / 'Cause love's just an old-fashioned word... And love dares you to change our way of caring about ourselves. / This is our last dance. / This is ourselves."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Enjoy the first official song for Suicide Squad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UprcpdwuwCg
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Enjoy the first official song for Suicide Squad   I love how when the inmates come clowning into the room, they don't do some corny poo poo where the singer is automatically down with them. He remains very stand-offish and worried.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Yeah that ended up being alright all things considered. Good job matching the shots from the film. It's a straight up travesty that Will Smith isn't releasing a Deadshot diss track for this movie though. Just a few minutes of him calling Batman and Waller wack. Dit'n have Superman's back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
bring back old gbs posted:Yeah that ended up being alright all things considered. Good job matching the shots from the film. Now this is a story all about how My rear end got mixed with a whacked out clown Now I'd like to tell you all about my life of cry-em And tell you how I ended up here in Arkham Asylum
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
To you, all the hoodlums all across the land Take it from Deadshot, Batman just don't understand
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:You're solution to a McGuffin is just being more vague and less specific? I don't see that being an improvement. It's obviously worse, but the joke is that at least that one guy would be happy because there's no object involved. NikkolasKing posted:Obligated by who or what? Morality. Wherever you think that comes from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:What I'm reading is beyond mere altruism, and, indeed, beyond nationhood. In Beavis, at the film's conclusion, Diana Prince very notably calls attention to the fact that Superman is only buried with patriotic fervor because this is merely the primary means that the United States, as a unconsciously self-conscious nation, has of remembering his sacrifice - as defending the 'true state' from the abominable Other, as being a 'fallen soldier' even though he was literally nuked himself. The movie does everything in its power to draw a contrast between the enormity of Clark's moral potential and the persistent cynicism of the world around him, most evidently in the news media and the reactionary right effigy of Superman, racism by blaming him for what 'his people' did, etc. Sir Kodiak posted:Morality. Wherever you think that comes from. A simple answer for a not simple question, I'm afraid. I appreciate the depth of thought put into this but morality is something the greatest minds of humanity have debated for thousands of years and I don't think they're any closer to determining the answer yet. What if, say, you really hate your society or country? Are you still obligated to help it? Is the moral thing to do to tear it down or to do your duty? I don't much like the US but my country gives me the ability sit on my rear end here and eat ice cream and debate comic book movies with you guys instead of making me go out and get a doctorate or work at a soup kitchen. I don't think society demands I do those things, nor does any religion I'm acquainted with. Just don't shoot people, love your neighbor, and you're golden. I just don't see any actual reason for Superman to help people beyond the fact he wants to. If he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:A simple answer for a not simple question, I'm afraid. I appreciate the depth of thought put into this but morality is something the greatest minds of humanity have debated for thousands of years and I don't think they're any closer to determining the answer yet. Are you seriously asking why Superman helps people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Are you seriously asking why Superman helps people? No,. I'm asking why he must help people, according to that poster. As an American, he has every right to do nothing for the rest of his life. As long as he isn't hurting anyone or breaking the law, he's aces according to society's standards and some religions, too. As long as he loves his girlfriend and takes care of her, he's a good person according to most standards, too. No one is obligated to "be all they can be."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:A simple answer for a not simple question, I'm afraid. I appreciate the depth of thought put into this but morality is something the greatest minds of humanity have debated for thousands of years and I don't think they're any closer to determining the answer yet. There's definitely Christian denominations – Methodism, for instance – and I'm sure schools of other religions, in which doing good works is an affirmative obligation, not merely faith or the abstinence from sin. Similarly, plenty of philosophies – Humanism, for example – define an obligation to actively do good for others. Yes, the US leaves you free to do good, or not, as a matter of law. As such, the obligation to do good is a moral one. It may come from within or without, but, yeah, it's intangible. Whether you hate your country is irrelevant. But if helping your country is immoral, then, yes, it would be immoral to help out (tautologically). You have to make that call for yourself, what you can practically do to do good. Or at least, you are responsible for who you turn to for guidance. Ultimately, though, I'm not really sure what you're looking for here. Do you want me to explain the religious principles behind which Methodism demands charitable work? That seems a bit off-topic. I think you may be misreading how people are using the word "obligation." There's not some external force actively engaged in the process of obligating him. He's a superman, just like you, and has a responsibility for his own values. NikkolasKing posted:No,. I'm asking why he must help people, according to that poster. As an American, he has every right to do nothing for the rest of his life. As long as he isn't hurting anyone or breaking the law, he's aces according to society's standards and some religions, too. As long as he loves his girlfriend and takes care of her, he's a good person according to most standards, too. He has that right under the law as an American. One is subject to other obligations than the legal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 07:18
|
|