Man of Steel's Critique Of The No Kill Rule
I’ve made it no secret that i detest the no kill rule, and it’s not because i think the rule is bad in and of itself, but it’s that it’s always been presented as this superficial, mentally coddled world view of absolutist morality; a view that says that no amount of innocent lives being wasted and lost is ever a reasonable, nor justifiable reason to circumvent your morals, you’re better left shrugging and holding onto it, regardless of consequences. It’s a rule that celebrates apathy but masks it to be about virtue. If your virtue comes at the expense of letting evil prosper, then are you really virtuous? This rule, of which my distaste is bottomless, has only ever been applied intelligently twice to my satisfaction, once in the DCAU Justice League and secondly, as a broken rule (imagine that) in Man of Steel. I’ve always had very high opinions of Man of Steel, it’s only gotten higher ever since i became conscious of the anti mos/dceu narrative (i was out of the loop initially), which challenged me to scrutinize the story and it’s final act all over again and again and again and again and for me, it continues to hold up and it will continue to hold up for eternity.
Man of Steel, as the complex masterpiece it is, can be interpreted in numerous ways, as long as your “interpretation”, is supported by the canon. One such interpretation i’ve had forever, is that the entire film can be viewed as a direct critique of the moral absolutism associated with the no kill rule and the kind of apathy it creates in the name of virtue. Basically, it criticizes the no kill rule, not as bad, but as horrifically ineffective and atrocious in most applications, just like the movie shows what actually happens (what you see but don’t think about even when it’s right in front of you) when superheroes and supervillains fight in populated areas, so also does it reveal the inherent folly of holding so tightly to the no kill rule as if it’s about virtue, when a little closer inspection will reveal it promotes apathy and detachment. Let’s look at the ways i believe the movie makes this statement:
This is the first red flag we’re introduced to in the story, the Kryptonian council is painted in a negative light right from their introduction. They are horribly ineffective, engage in endless debates and when they do bother to make a decision, it’s a decision that negatively affects every other Kryptonian in the story. With their planet on the verge of death and their race on the verge of extinction, what does the Kryptonian council do? Dedicates the last of it’s resources to imprison a criminal who goes on to later cause pain and hardships for everyone else in the movie. For clarity, this criminal; General Zod, who’s murdered dozens of people, a council member, and his own best friend, all in the name of being more proactive in comparison to the slowness of the council, is sentenced to the Phantom Zone. This requires the very last of their resources, resources that could have been used to get however number of Kryptonian citizens off-world to the old Kryptonian outposts like Jor-el suggested in the first place. And in so doing, they damned not only their race, but Earth by extension because their actions, while unforeseen, were callous enough to be considered culpable. And this isn’t the first time the Kryptonian council is guilty of finding “another way” when they blatantly had only one way out.
In the Man of Steel prequel comic, the council stashes Dev-em; a Kryptonian murderer, the first in generations, aboard a maiden voyage to the stars in search of new worlds, because in their own words, “we are not barbarians like the Thanagarians” so in other words, they were too “moral” to execute him. That maiden voyage’s crew included Kara Zor-el, Kal-el’s ancestor, who was undertaking what was at the time, a bold move for their race to stretch their influence to other worlds. The magnitude of this mission can’t be understated, this voyage was one of many that led to the creation of the Kryptonian outposts mentioned in the film. The film points out that abandoning this venture, was one of the ways Krypton’s eventual demise started, along with artificial population control, the eugenics based system it employed, the predetermining of a child’s purpose and the waste of their natural resources including drilling into their planet’s core. But back to the council’s decision, Dev-em escapes captivity, kills all crew on board the ship, gets in a scuffle with Kara Zor-el and crashes the ship. That ship is the scout ship that summons Zod to Earth in the movie, it’s distress signal being a cry for salvation from Dev-em. So we have two important instances where the Kryptonian council would rather find “another way” than take the one in front of them because it’s not moral enough for their virtuous tastes. But let’s also look at the methods they seemingly prefer to use, shall we? Let’s see if these methods are actually better than this immoral action they constantly refuse to take.
To those unaware, the phantom zone is a Kryptonian prison that houses Krypton’s most dangerous criminals. But even more insidiously, it has in most incarnations, been described as and looks like a fate worse than death, with the Donner movies, Smallville and the DCEU basically contesting for the most horrible version ever. Donner’s Phantom Zone was a diamond shaped prison where prisoners are stuck and ejected into space forever, Smallville had the prisoners bodies destroyed and their essence left in the zone as shambling, body stealing wraiths. The DCEU’s version will require a more explicit explanation. It involves a process of encasing the accused completely in ice, a very painful process as seen by General Zod’s cohorts screaming in pain, with the exception of Zod himself and Faora, who manage to bear it all with teeth clenched willpower. There’s also the implication that they are completely conscious even while encased completely in ice and in pain the whole time, their nociceptors working on overdrive. It’s so easy to overlook the horrific nature of this “moral” punishment while joking that their ice-maiden cocoons (because they look like and function like iron-maidens) look like dicks, doesn’t it? Then they’re sent into a ship, that carries their cocoons through a hyperspace portal to the phantom zone until their sentence runs out and then they’ll be released. Except they wouldn’t be. Krypton was dying, the end was here, their sentence of 300 cycles of sematic reconditioning meant nothing, they were damned for all eternity by those who considered execution too morally repulsive, even though given a choice, they would likely choose death. They were to consciously suffer their punishment within the ice for all eternity, and yet were only being sentenced for 300 years in what sounds like a sick joke.
Zod: You won’t kill us yourselves! You won’t sully your hands but you’ll damn us to a black hole for eternity!
The phantom zone is the go to excuse for that “another way” but there’s nothing better about the way it’s been applied in most media, it’s just there to coddle the morality of a desensitized viewer about what was right and what was needed in a story and Man of Steel clearly shows that there was nothing right or “moral” about it. But does the kind of morality that Kryptonians display influence the way Zod or any of his followers view Kal-el?
Expectations of Kryptonian Morality
If you’re like me, and you believe that absolute morality is being criticized in this movie, then Faora’s verbal smack down on Kal carries more meaning. While it’s easy to interprete her words as being about Clark having moral principles which put him at a disadvantage compared to their advantageous lack of it, it could also be interpreted as Faora pointing out that she expects him to display the very same self righteous air of moral superiority common to Kryptonians, a morality so high, it’s not above letting evil triumph as long as it stays intact. She expects him to be so caught up and drunk on his idea of morality, that he’d be willing to let people die rather than stop them, just like the Kryptonian council did. It’s decision to imprison them, ensured their survival, hence their “evolutionary advantage” over Kal, who could still be stuck in that same bubble.
Even in the final battle, Zod visibly smirks when Kal declares he’ll stop him, how could he not? Kal’s statement was virtually empty, how could he stop Zod? He’s exhausted all alternatives, sentenced his people to a fate worse than death, now he was going to feel Zod’s wrath. It was going down, of course he’d smirk. Kal’s been placed in that very same position Krypton’s council was, an entire planet’s fate in his hands, and Zod naturally expects his mind to be soaked in that same Kryptonian mentality, so will he keep trying to find “another way” as people keep dying or will he realize that there’s only so much he can actually control? Is his sense of morality really stronger than his concern for the billions of lives depending on him? And throughout the fight, Zod hammers the message home:
Zod: I will make them suffer, Kal. These humans you’ve adopted, i will take them all from you one by one!
Zod: There is only one way this ends, Kal. Either you die, or i do...
Zod: If you love these people so much, then you can mourn for them!
Add to this, earlier in the movie Jonathan tells him he has to decide the kind of man he wants to be, because that man; good character or bad, will change the world. Throughout the movie he’s proved what kind of man he was in different ways; selfless, brave, vulnerable, kind, empathetic, trusting, hopeful, etc. Now, he had to make a choice again, this time for an entire race and he chose what is undoubtedly the right choice in my opinion. Sure, it may not be a comfortable message for people to hear or read that Superman’s choice should involve killing Zod, but this is a movie that has proven time and again that actions have consequences, there are no deus ex machinas, get out of jail free cards, nothing. Clark has helplessly watched his father die, all his life he’s learnt there’s only so much you can control, you can’t save those who don’t want to be saved, you can’t just harmlessly stop those who don’t want to be stopped. He’s been pushed hard all his life but Zod is no schoolyard bully pushing him against a fence, Zod isn’t some nobody that can’t hurt him, Zod is the single worst phenomenon that dwarfs everything else he’d been able to passively endure in his life. Clark was able to keep his existence a secret for most of his life but within an hour of showing up, Zod outs him. Clark’s been passive his whole life despite ridicule, bullying and humiliation but within 24hrs of showing up, Zod pushes him enough that he throws his first punch ever. Everything he was taught, Zod was that antithesis that put it all to shame. But more importantly, Zod was proof that Clark was ultimately as helpless to control life like any other human and therefore, his decisions will carry repercussions and can’t be taken naively. And so, Clark chose to kill Zod, out of a lack of other options beyond falling back on the suicidal black/white morality his people were known for.
But since i said the no kill rule encourages apathy and detachment from viewers, is there any basis to any of it in the real world? Hello? This is Man of Steel, aka the movie that proved lots of people are fine letting evil prosper as long as they can shrug and say “at least my morals are intact”. This movie definitively proved that people’s sense of morality had taken a nose dive straight into apathy masqueraded as virtue. There was no end of “the real superman would have found another way!” in a story where an entire race vanishes overnight over that very same mentality. The obsessive focus on the action of Superman killing Zod rather than the context that more than justified a death that was already rightly bought when Zod commanded the World Engine be used to kill people. That the movie frames his death as a last resort only adds to my respect for it because he doesn’t even deserve that benefit. “Superman never ever kills! Ever!” cried detractors as they salivated over a version of superman killing a powerless man and joking about it. What do we call this kind of morality? One that calls an unavoidable death inexcusable but relishes a senseless one? And then would years later, go on to salivate over a near repeat of it, another senseless death covered up in jokes considered as acceptable? Because it seems people are 100% okay with their heroes (especially superman) killing, as long as they joke about it and feel nothing. So is this really about virtue? Or is it just an apathetic and detached populace fooling itself that it actually cares about morality? Because when it comes down to it, even despite proving that he wasn’t the kind of man to let people die in some misplaced sense of moral superiority, Superman mourns having had to take such a decision and mourns the death of a man who didn’t deserve it and refused to back down or stay down regardless of his pleas. He cries over his own helplessness and the ultimate imperfection that living in the real world (so to speak) brings. Because even though the movie criticizes moral absolutism, even though it hammers home the inherent stupidity of the no kill rule as an absolute, it never pretends like subverting it was without it’s own moral and emotional consequence. It was a blow to all his years of upbringing, his ability to navigate the world, to make decisions, his pacifism, but most of all, his conscience and faith in himself. A bad man died, a world lived and a good man was broken despite taking the only reasonable decision he had left, actions have consequences, we make decisions and we have to live with it. So Superman ends up showing more moral fiber in a movie where he kills than his own detractors do and it became just one more reason why i detested the rule because people didn’t care about morality in the first place.
