Hot Tub Time Machine: The Philosophy of Superman PT.1
In 2018, I played arm-chair philo-si-phizer and wrote a lengthy think piece on the greatest hero in American lore, Superman.
Back in ye ole 2018, I wrote an article for the now-defunct website Comicsverse, titled - Make Superman Great Again: Morality, Philosophy and The Man of Steel. I had decided to put that philosophy degree to work since the philosophy factor was going through some recent budget cuts.
I figured that this first edition of Hot Tub Time Machine, which will be random throwbacks to writings I’ve done over the years, should be one of the most fun and arduous things I’ve written.
Thus a great launching point for the series.
In my life so far, there have only been two pieces of writing that are at the top of my list of mutually loathing and loving, simply for the amount of time spent, revisions made, and research done to complete them.
This is the first, and the second has been my graduate degree final thesis paper.
In the history of super-powered characters, Superman, in my opinion, is thee greatest hero in terms of morality and ethics. He is the archetype that all characters in the genre should follow, and quite frankly, he’s been done a disservice over the years in how he’s been handled and written in almost every medium.
Now, this piece is a bit dated at this point by a few years, but the core, and almost its entirety, is still pretty accurate.
Enjoy.
Make Superman Great Again: Morality, Philosophy, and The Man of Steel
Created in 1933 by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, Superman is the quintessential comic book hero and the first of his kind.
Now, we all know who he is: his story, his friends, his foes, his weaknesses, and his strengths. The image and mythos of Superman span age, era, and gender in the American culture, as well as around the globe.
However, I believe it is in this modern era that we’ve lost sight of what actually makes this character great, with this lack of “greatness” becoming even more apparent considering the role Superman played in DC’s New 52 [and subsequent universe resets] and the darker, almost unidentifiable character in the recent cinematic landscape. Outside of some slight glimmers of hope found in select entertainment outliers of the iconic red trunk-wearing Big Blue Boy Scout, which truly embodies his character, who Superman is, and what he means, generally speaking, seem completely lost on creators and audiences alike.
Why is it so Difficult For a Modern Audience to Connect with Superman?
Superman is easily the most iconic comic book hero in the medium’s history, as well as arguably the most recognizable character around the globe in terms of American literature and pop culture, next to maybe Mickey Mouse. You’d be hard-pressed to find one individual on planet Earth that doesn’t recognize the red S shield and the story that’s associated with it.
At the same time, however, many view Superman as one of the least relatable characters in our modern culture and in entertainment.
Superman is simply too perfect, too alien, and too godlike for readers to connect with. He’s a character based on idealism in a world full of cynicism. This is why Batman and Batman-related characters are so popular in contrast to the Big Blue Boy Scout.
Superman represents the ideals that people are ultimately good, a philosophy closely associated with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the philosophy that Superman ultimately represents. While Batman represents a cynicism that people are not to be trusted and, at their core, are only out for themselves, an idea presented by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
Ironically enough, just like in the comics, where storylines and the dichotomy of Superman versus Batman are a quintessential trope of DC Comics, the same was for Rousseau versus Hobbes and can be found throughout philosophical debates on human nature:
"Overall, Hobbes has a rather negative view about human nature, in that without an 'absolute sovereign' to control our desires we will live in a constant 'State of War', which is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. Rousseau's theory contrasted with that of Hobbes, as he thought human nature is largely good."
Then, of course, there’s Clark Kent, who’s clean-cut, plain, and mild-mannered. Not exactly a model to elicit an emotional response in those looking for struggle in their entertainment.
A modern audience wants a character whose struggles with gender, race, culture, or ethnicity closely relate to their own.
A white guy from Kansas doesn’t exactly fit that model, at least on the surface. This leaves the character who was once revered as the greatest superhero lacking in the qualities many deem, cool let alone ‘great.’
What is Superman Missing?
I’m not sure if there has ever been a more eloquent description of what makes the Superman character stand above the rest than this one by Max Landis:
“What’s special about Superman is his parents didn’t fucking die. He’s not a selfish post-traumatic sissy who needed to have his parents shot to death in front of him to understand that maybe you should help people and that crime is wrong and murder is bad. His Uncle Ben didn’t need to be killed, basically at his own hand, to drive the point home that if you have superpowers, you should use them to help people. He didn’t get stranded on a desert island. He didn’t have a ring forced upon him that brought him to an intergalactic police force. He wasn’t raised by Amazons. He didn’t go up on a ship and get irradiated. He’s just a guy from Kansas who has the best superpowers. He’s unstoppable, and instead of absolute power corrupting absolutely, absolute power has absolved him from fear and greed and hate and all of the weaknesses that stem from human insecurity.”
And yet, there still seems to be something missing, something that doesn’t connect with the broader audience. Landis’ sentiments either don’t resonate or are just often lost.
[To address a comment on the original posting in 2018 stating - “WHAT’S SPECIAL ABOUT SUPERMAN IS HIS PARENTS DIDN’T FUCKING DIE.” Um. His parents blew up along with Krypton...And his human parents eventually die, too...?
No. And no.
He did not know his parents died on Krypton until after learning about his powers and already using them for ‘good’ in almost every instance of canon and storyline.
Clark does amazing things. Clark helps people with powers. The Kents tell him he’s really an alien.
Second, depending on the storyline, Clark is already Superman before either Ma or Pa Kent passes.
Motivation still stands, just being a good person rather than tragedy-inspired.]
Superman v. Spider-Man
Clark’s decision to be a hero and use his powers for good is by far one of the most compelling aspects of the character and, at the same time, his Kryptonite.
By being presented as an ultimate symbol of moral good, Clark is constantly portrayed as this stale, flat caricature rather than anything or anyone with substance that an audience can connect with.
This has been a creative plague attached to him for far too long.
Most people relate to the awkwardness, internal turmoil, and daily struggles of Peter Parker in relation to the almost perfect, picturesque life of Clark Kent.
Peter is constantly failing and constantly falling short, no matter how hard he tries to do better. Peter, unfortunately, is born a loser. While Clark, on the other hand, simply plays the part of the fool. For Clark, his failures are only a show, and in Peter, it’s a reality, and the concept of being too good you have to fake imperfections is an idea difficult for most to connect with.
Grant Morrison further dissects Clark’s “act”:
"'Superman' is an act. 'Clark Kent' in Metropolis is also an act. There are actually two Kents, at least – one is a disguise, a bumbling, awkward mask for Superman. The other is the confident, strong, good-hearted Clark Kent, who was raised by his surrogate Ma and Pa in Kansas and knows how to drive a tractor. I think he's the most 'real' of all."
The Atlantic explains these differences in the characters of Spider-Man and Superman as:
“Steve Ditko and Stan Lee, his creators, had reinvented the Superman engine, taking the archetype of the super-heroic outsider and making him an underdog through a series of clever tweaks. Where Clark Kent’s romantic life was a game, Peter Parker’s was a soap opera; where Clark’s boss was gruff, Peter’s was a jerk; where Kent was ignored in civilian guise, Parker was actively picked on. Marvel had, in effect, figured out how to supplant Superman.”
Luckily for Spider-Man, it seems no matter the medium, era, or take on the character, the creators who handle Peter always seem to understand where he comes from; an awkward and all-around weak geek suddenly having power thrust upon him, along with his personal journey of finding balance in his newfound responsibilities.
While in Superman’s case, outside of some very iconic storylines like ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, KINGDOM COME, SUPERMAN: LAST SON OF KRYPTON, a small handful of others, plus Christopher Reeves’ perfect rendition of the character in the original SUPERMAN films, the “what” that Superman represents is generally lost or just undervalued in modern society.
It doesn’t seem like many creators or handlers of the Man of Steel seem to know how to manage this larger-than-life persona or at least accept what goes along with him. Superman tales are very hit or miss, either nailing the character or just falling completely short, and that isn’t exactly a great ratio for a character with 80 years’ worth of stories.
Superman and Modern Western Philosophy
Now, unlike Peter and many other comic characters, Clark is not compelled by outside circumstances that push him into the role of hero. Clark has made the decision to help others and use his abilities for no other reason than it was the right choice, and he sees a need for his presence.
If you ask most whether Clark should or shouldn’t use these abilities in the manner he does, almost all would say absolutely. As if it’s his sole responsibility and duty, the whole idea of “with great power comes great responsibility” or, as Immanuel Kant would put it: “ought implies can.”
So why is it that we expect Superman to do these great things because he “can” but don’t follow suit ourselves?
Every day we as regular people can give money to the man on the corner, hold the door open for a stranger, or help an older woman with her groceries, but do we? When you’re asked to donate a dollar while checking out at a register, do you? Many people answer with, “I’ve already donated,” or “Just not today.”
I think for most, the loss of a dollar for a “greater good” wouldn’t be noticed or impact them in the slightest, and what’s more likely, is that the dollar would go to something unneeded or frivolous. This is an action that isn’t super or even above and beyond the call of duty, yet we rationalize some reason or reasons not to.
In Superman’s case, we have an example of a character who’s always going above and beyond, whether it harms his social life, his physical well-being, or even his own comfort because of the empathy he feels towards other life forms and, specifically, the people of Earth.
Clark is “super” in his very being.
His desire to help goes past his own comfort levels or the good of his survival, not because ought implies can but because of a deeper sense of morality that only he can engage in.
Superman isn’t driven by a sense of duty nor an exterior trigger in order to create his subjective “need” for his presence as a hero, but instead by a very deep, empathetic nature to help those around him.
He relates to the pain of others, even if he himself doesn’t experience physical pain in the way most other sentient lifeforms do, particularly the people of Earth.
He’s the sole (for the most part) survivor of a destroyed planet and, for much of his life, felt out of place; and, depending on the situation, Superman can still feel physical harm to varying degrees depending on whether Krypton, magic or a Darkseid level character are involved or how the story is written. However, generally, the way or how Superman feels pain is depicted as different than other beings.
However, Superman understands pain, even if his personal experience with pain is different than our own.
The Embodiment of Utilitarian Philosophy
Revisiting the prior point of “ought implies can” and pivoting from it, we can present Superman’s own moral philosophies almost parallel to a utilitarian point of view by the philosopher Peter Singer, who states in his essay “Fame, Affluence, and Morality”:
“I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. I think most people will agree about this, although one may reach the same view by different routes. I shall not argue for this view. People can hold all sorts of eccentric positions, and perhaps from some of them it would not follow that death by starvation is in itself bad. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to refute such positions, and so for brevity, I will henceforth take this assumption as accepted. Those who disagree need read no further.
My next point is this: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. By "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance" I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent. This principle seems almost as uncontroversial as the last one. It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important. I could even, as far as the application of my argument to the Bengal emergency is concerned, qualify the point so as to make it: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.
The uncontroversial appearance of the principle just stated is deceptive. If it were acted upon, even in its qualified form, our lives, our society, and our world would be fundamentally changed. For the principle takes, firstly, no account of proximity or distance. It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. Secondly, the principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position.”
Singer argues that one can be held morally worthy of blame if they have the ability to promote good and help those in need, as long as one doesn’t sacrifice anything of moral importance in the process.
Singer is famous for a utilitarian philosophy of morality, as well as a very extreme view if we’re honest, across species and in how one should live. He has argued you should donate as much money as you possibly can, as long as you allow yourself what’s minimally needed to survive and that you are ethically bound to help others to your fullest capabilities, which in Superman’s case, is limitless.
Superman and Speciesism
Now, *warning label*, what I am about to state isn’t intended as Vegan propaganda or a manifesto but rather, the best example I can use in comparing someone of Superman’s stature to a real-life example.
In the case of Superman, thanks to his Kryptonian heritage, he’s a being beyond human capabilities and standards. Clark Kent has surpassed any human in terms of physical potential and even intellectual abilities in the same way we humans would consider ourselves to most, if not all, of the creatures in nature.
This is the reason we’re the only animal on Earth that have captured other creatures for the purpose of viewing and selling into economic commodities. We no longer hunt. We have an entire economy based on the subjugation of “lesser beings” and imposing our higher capabilities upon them. We dictate the lives of entire species and ecosystems. A large majority of us would argue that we have no moral need to improve the conditions of these “lesser beings” or change how they are treated, nor are we held to the same moral obligation we are to other humans.
Unless you’re a Vegan, Vegetarian, Jain, or someone with similar ethical and philosophical doctrine, these ethical obligations are generally unquestioned, and this is precisely why the majority of people who read Peter Singer and his utilitarian views find him to be too unrealistic and too extreme.
Now, if such duties are too unrealistic in our own capabilities or actions, then should we expect Superman to feel any different?
This is exactly what makes him so special, so “super,” and how we gauge the morality of our superheroes.
He’s an individual who is “beyond” even some of the actual gods in DC canon, and yet he’s more empathetic towards humans than almost anyone or anything else.
This empathy is a core element that baffles his fellow Kryptonians, as well as a constant dichotomy between Kal-El and General Zod:
“We have obtained glimpses into your life on this primitive planet for decades, and yet I have never understood your motives for self-degradation. Your father would be disgraced to discover you masquerading as one of these sub-Kryptonians." (Zod, SUPERMAN: LAST SON OF KRYPTON)
“I’ve discovered his weakness… he cares. He actually cares for these Earth people!” (Zod, SUPERMAN II)
A God with the Emotions of Man
What makes Clark so special is he transcends even species through his empathetic and caring nature.
He transcends the normal boundaries of morality because of the empathetic feelings he has towards other sentient beings and the pain they feel, as well as the dreams they hold. His time on Earth and upbringing with the Kents, as well as his own nature, is that of someone who simply wants to do right and help all those he can.
“I hear everything. You wrote that the world doesn’t need a savior, but every day I hear the people crying out for one.” (Superman, SUPERMAN RETURNS)
When Peter Parker first received his superpowers, what was the first thing he did with them? Peter chose to use his newfound abilities for profit and popularity, and it wasn’t until the loss of his uncle that he realized: “With great power, there must also come great responsibility.”
Could it be this humanizing factor that compels readers more toward Peter than Clark? That Peter is fallible? That he makes human mistakes, while Clark always makes the right choice?
In Mark Waid’s essay “The Real Truth About Superman: And The Rest of Us Too,” he believes Superman is actually driven by a need to belong and, in helping others, is acting in his own self-interest. This is further strengthened as a theory in an essay by Arno Bogarts titled “Rediscovering Nietzsche’s Übermensch in Superman as a Heroic Ideal,” which states:
“Superman does what he does, not for worship or power, nor out of fear, dominance, or pity, but simply because he chooses to do so as the fulfillment of the destiny he carved out for himself. In other words, Nietzsche’s will to power.”
It is a very humanizing quality as well and a uniquely American philosophy to carve out one’s own future, and yet it still seems to be lost in most stories relating to the Man of Steel.
So what is it that makes other characters seem so human and Clark so alien?
“It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then…he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him.” (Batman, SUPERMAN/BATMAN #3)
How Creators are Failing the Man of Steel
I would argue several key factors are the root cause of this.
One, it comes down to the writers making stories that relate to the audience.
If a writer creates a flat caricature with virtually no way to connect with the audience, you get the dilemma that many find with Superman and the hit-or-miss stories that are associated with him. This comes down to DC; their editors and the creators involved are just not capitalizing on the ideas right in front of them and what they ought to be doing with the character.
Second, I think those who are writing these stories just do not accept the larger-than-life persona of Superman and the fact that he is meant to be the unachievable—a god walking among men rather than a man trying to play god.
“Goku is incredibly powerful, a skilled warrior, and a great character, but Superman is on a completely different level. One which really doesn’t belong in versus matches like these. Sure, due to the writing style of Dragon Ball, Super Saiyan God’s exact levels are difficult to pinpoint, also Goku will likely achieve a new form in the future; it’s just how Dragon Ball works nowadays. However, none of that is really a factor. Goku will always have limits, while Superman’s maximum potential is limitless... Goku is the epitome of a self-made man. In spirit and personal goals, he inspires people to work hard to achieve dreams. To many Goku is proof there is no struggle that cannot be overcome. And the world of Dragon Ball fits this mold. Every obstacle Goku faces in Dragon Ball has a limit he can overtake. Even those called gods in his universe can be defeated and surpassed. And that is where Superman breaks this match up… Superman is an all-powerful being… he is not meant to be relatable. He is not meant to lose. While Goku’s story is one of a man becoming the best warrior he can be, Superman’s is the story of a god trying to live amongst men. It’s not about if he loses a fight but whether or not he’s doing the right thing. That’s why he stands for Truth, Justice, and Freedom. That’s why he doesn’t wear a mask. That’s why he’s called the Superman… Ultimately, Goku versus Superman comes down to limits and purpose. What happens when you pit a man with the power to break any limits against a being with no limits in the first place?” (DEATH BATTLE: Goku vs. Superman 2)
While The Atlantic actually surmises that DC finds Superman embarrassing, stating:
“In fact, it’s hard to escape the impression that Superman’s own company finds him a bit embarrassing. As the comics writer Chris Sims points out in his review of the anniversary compilation Superman: A Celebration of 75 Years, DC’s company line on Superman seems to be that he’s “a depressed sad sack who never wins.” The company ditched his iconic red trunks in 2011 and placed him instead in the blue, armor-like suit he currently wears on film. In response to fan complaints that Superman was “too powerful” and thus boring, it constantly adjusted his level of strength."
The evidence seems even more likely when you look at the treatment Superman has received cinematically.
In the DCEU, Clark was ultimately given a backseat in his own sequel. After MAN OF STEEL, Batman was suddenly added into the mix because the film didn’t meet expectations. A character DC has, for a long time now, over-saturated the market with to comical levels over their other characters.
For a simple visual of this, go to your local comic store and see how many Bat-related titles there are, compared to the other DC characters.
Not only was Batman added to what was supposed to be Superman’s sequel, but Wonder Woman as well. If the most iconic female comic book character of all time wasn’t enough, they also threw in Aquaman, the Flash, Cyborg, and Doomsday, as well as hints at Darkseid.
Basically, the film went from Man of Steel 2, to Superman & Batman, to DC’s Trinity, and finally, in all honesty, to Justice League Light.
Was this DC’s original intention, or was DC trying to play catch up to Marvel?
[Insert for hindsight in 2023 and how that all turned out]
That’s [was in 2018] debatable and isn’t the issue that I’m trying to highlight. The problem is taking your flagship character, one that crosses culture and country, your original, your Captain America, and turning him into a supporting role to Batman and the second name in the title of what should have been his sequel.
Zack Snyder himself seems to completely miss the point of the character as well [yes, even the Snydercut], especially in a statement regarding the film and how his Superman spent his time:
“Over the last two years he’s basically been Superman as pop culture would know him, he’s been righting wrongs, there have been floods, mines have collapsed, bridges have collapsed, churches have caught on fire. He’s basically been a hero. When we find him, he’s been dealing with the everyday world of being a superhero, but there’s a paradigm shift happening in that the unintended consequences of some of those rescues are starting to come into fruition. He’s starting to see that every action has a reaction. Like, if you’re just taking a cat out of a tree, you can’t touch anything or the arborists will say, ‘he damaged the tree branch when he got the cat down.’ Or, ‘the cat wasn’t neutered, so now there’s thousands of cats.’ There’s no winning anymore for Superman.”
It’s also not unrealistic to believe either that DC is somewhat embarrassed by their characters on the cinematic level and in the presence of wider audiences. When Marvel creates a film starring no-name heroes, one of which is a gun-toting raccoon and a talking tree, and the writer of MAN OF STEEL, David S. Goyer, was making statements about DC characters like this:
“How many people in the audience have heard of Martian Manhunter?” After hearing some light applause and cheers, Goyer added, “How many people that raised their hands have ever been laid?” Cont. Goyer: “Well, he hasn’t been rebooted but he’s a mainstay in the Justice League. He can’t be fucking called the Martian Manhunter because that’s goofy. He can be called Manhunter.”
[And guess what, we still didn’t even get ‘Manhunter’ in a film]
Now, BATMAN V. SUPERMAN had, to put it nicely, a very mixed reception among fans and critics, and presenting any opinion about it is irrelevant at this point. The character Snyder displayed in the film was almost blasphemous. To say he neutered and bastardized Superman is an entire article in itself.
Superman is a character who uplifts and whose sole purpose is driven by helping mankind. If you walk out of a theater feeling depressed because of a film in which Superman is one of the most pivotal aspects and central characters, you should know something is more than “off.”
Snyder presented an unconfident sad sack who was more concerned with Lois Lane and people liking him rather than doing what was right and uplifting those around him.
Snyder and Goyer’s Superman is selfish, and that’s the farthest quality from what the definitive Superman represents, and the fact that they don’t understand this is a real tragedy.
I’ve noticed while modern portrayals of characters like Batman, are constantly updating and becoming bigger or more grandiose, Superman at least in his current incarnation seems to be trying to get back to his roots. DC even went so far as stripping him of most of his powers and reverting back to the classic black and red insignia Max Fletcher designed in 1941. And what I think most people are beginning to understand is, Superman, when over explained, is uninteresting… It’s the simplicity of Superman that makes him such a compelling character. He’s a hero of perspicuity in his motivations. We always know what Superman will do, because he’ll always do what’s right. The clearer the motivations, the more distinct the character becomes. It’s the stories around him that should be complex… Super is his most fundamental attributes... If you had to explain to a 5 year who Superman was, this would be your description… he’s not an alien, he’s not a god, he’s just a dude from Kansas doing the right thing. (Superman: The Golden Age of Animation)
And this is where I’ll push pause. For the rest of this essay well…