Marvel Comics To Introduce Muslim Superhero

Post Reply New Topic

Marvel superheroes were developed during the war era in American history and depict supermen who were able to project the values of the average white christian American of the time and defend American society from those plotting to destroy the fabric of conservative christian middle class America. They played a role in providing kids with hope that America would always remain safe as well as escapism from real life horrors of wartime.

The character who epitomized the Marvel superhero the most was Captain America. The idea of a muslim or black superhero would have been a complete anathema to mindset of the Marvel comic creators. It's a bit like the reaction to the character portrayal in the movie "Hunger Games" where the avid fan base could only visualize white American heroes. So when the movie was released the reaction was unsurprisingly negative when actors from a minority background were cast in roles that fans demanded should be people who looked like them.

I think if I was a peasant I would have the right to stab him with a pitchfork.

But it doesn't have to be carrot or stick. That's purely a byproduct of the Christian/Abrahamic approach to morals.

Actually, the "carrot and stick" approach to morals is the way of all real-world moral systems. It is the case that many people will behave themselves without the threat of draconian consequences raining down on them. But I'm sure if you think about it, legal and moral systems were created for those disinclined to behave themselves--for example, if we were all so good and perfect that none of us had a desire to murder, there would be no need for murder laws. Murder laws are written with those inclined to kill others in mind. It's the same with morals.

Pre-christian/Socratic ethical systems maintained that moral behavior could be determined via reason and that moral behavior was necessary for a good/happy life. Therefore behaving morally was its own reward-no heaven or hell required.

Pre-Christian and the Socratic ethical system are two entirely different things. Pre-Christian moral systems made liberal use of our proverbial stick. Crucifixion was actually developed as a penalty for criminals. And the less said about the treatment of criminals in the Roman games, the better. Christianity put a stop to at least some of this barbarous behavior.

As far as the Socratic system is concerned, it would be great in a world of philosophers. The problem is that few people today or then are capable of understanding Socratic philosophy, even if they were so inclined. It is not for nothing that Plato has been described as the horizon toward which all other philosophers aspire to reach. It is very difficult stuff, and has never worked as a system in the real world. Even Plato recognized this most famously in his Allegory of the Cave, and in his very elitist concept of the philosopher-king.

It is also the case that I acknowledged the difference between carrot and stick and doing the right thing for the right thing's sake by citing Kant's ethics, who is another extremely difficult philosopher to master. Mastering Kant or Plato's thought is very difficult even for those who dedicate their lives to such pursuits. What about the vast majority of people who cannot or will not bother mastering such complex thought?

Bottom line: We must live in the world we have rather than the world we may want.

We are free to form our own opinion on what we believe is ethical,but we don't have the right to force it upon others.

Stalin had a right to his beliefs,and so did the peasants.
He had no right to inflict harm on them.
I agree with GoonSquad,your freedom ends where another's begins.