The Comics Professor

New book: The Virtues of Captain America: Modern-Day Lessons on Character from a World War II Superhero

Well, it's time to let the Cap out of the bag... I'm very pleased to announce my next book, The Virtues of Captain America: Modern-Day Lessons on Character from a World War II Superhero, which will be published by Wiley-Blackwell next March ahead of the film sequel Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier. (If you're so inclined, you can pre-order it now from Amazon.)

Unlike the books I edited or co-edited for the Blackwell Philosophy and Popular Culture series (such as Batman and Philosophy), this one is written solely by me—for better or for worse! Also, rather than presenting a survey of philosophical ideas presented through the lens of its topic, The Virtues of Captain America has a specific focus: showing how the "old-fashioned" ethical code of Steve Rogers is just as essential today as it was in the past, not only as a role model for individual character but also as a way out of America's current political divisiveness.

I had several goals in mind as I wrote this book:

• Similar to the approach of the Blackwell Philosophy and Popular Culture series, in this book I introduce basic concepts of moral philosophy, especially virtue ethics, using examples drawn from decades of Captain America stories. In particular, I wanted to address the complexity of moral decision-making, for which simple rules, formulas, and virtues can be a guide but never the final answer. For this reason, judgment is a constant theme in the book (and takes up an entire chapter in itself).

• I wanted to address the perception that Captain America's ethical code is anachronistic, simplistic, and "black and white." As I argue throughout the book, none of these could be farther from the truth. The ideals that ground Cap's ethics are timeless, and while his core principles may be simple, the process of using judgment to balance them to make moral decisions in specific circumstances is anything but black-and-white, as Cap shows time and time again in the comics.

• More ambitiously, I wanted to show that Captain America's relationship to his country—in particular, the way he emphasizes principle over politics—can help Americans in the real world to start to heal our radical political divisions. If we focus, as Cap does, on the core ideals of justice, equality, and liberty that Americans share, we can better put into context our differences of opinion regarding how best to put these ideals into practice.

• And, most personally, I wanted to share my love of this classic superhero character through his decades of stories in comics such as Captain America, Avengers, and the countless other titles in which he's appeared over the years (hundreds of which are cited in the book). In the process, I also pay tribute to the dozens of talented creators who have crafted his stories, starting with Joe Simon, Jack Kirby, and Stan Lee, and continung with legends such as Jim Sternako, J.M. DeMatteis, Mark Waid, Ed Brubaker, and Paul Jenkins (just to name a few).

I'm sure to bombard you with more details and sneak peeks as the book approaches publication, but for the time being, you might like the following articles and blog posts I've written about Cap in the past (many of which laid the groundwork for the book):

• My Captain America op-ed from 2011, published in both The San Diego Union-Tribune and The Washington Times (PDF of print version), which serves well as an abstract of the book. (In fact, it was a large part of the proposal for it.)
• "Can Captain America Heal a Divided Nation?", at The Good Men Project (as well as here), which uses a storyline from the Ultimate Marvel Universe (not covered in my book) to address the issue of principle versus politics.
• "Are Captain America's Ethics Too Old-Fashioned for the 21st Century?", a blog post at Psychology Today that addresses the anachronist and "black-and-white" issues about Cap's moral code.
• "Can Captain America Show Us How to Be More Cosmopolitan?", a more recent Psychology Today blog post addressing Cap's worldly brand of patriotism.
• Another piece from The Good Men Project extolling several of Cap's virtues, along with my GMP review of the first Cap movie.
• A piece from this very blog discussing Cap's sense of authority in the context of Stoic thought. (You can also click on Captain America at the right to see more posts on him, not all of which are worth listing here.)

Finally, I discussed Captain America, directly or indirectly, in a number of chapters in the Blackwell Philosophy and Popular Culture series:

• "Captain America and the Virtue of Modesty," in Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture, edited by William Irwin, a free e-book collecting chapters from superhero-themed books in the series along with exclusive chapters on Cap and Thor.
• "Superhuman Ethics Class with the Avengers Prime," a survey of the three main schools of ethics using Thor, Iron Man, and Cap, from my edited volume The Avengers and Philosophy: Earth's Mightiest Thinkers. (Note that here, Cap is cast as the deontologist while Thor is the virtuous one; in The Virtues of Captain America I explain why virtue ethics and deontology both help to characterize Cap's ethics.)
• "Did Iron Man Kill Captain America?", an essay addressing Tony Stark's role in the Marvel "Civil War," particularly in contrast to Cap (another recurring theme in my new book), from my edited volume Iron Man and Philosophy: Facing the Stark Reality.
• "'My Name is Peter Parker': Unmasking the Right and the Good," in which I cast Peter Parker as the prize in Iron Man and Cap's moral tug-of-war during the Civil War, from J.J. Sanford's edited volume Spider-Man and Philosophy: The Web of Inquiry. (I revisit this theme in this blog post.)

Grant Morrison tells a story of Nazi Superman—and so does Superman and Philosophy!

As Zap2It reported early this morning, part of Grant Morrison's sprawling DC Comics series Multiversity will tell the story of a stranger from another planet landing in Nazi Germany rather than Smallville, Kansas:

"Imagine you're Superman and for the first 25 [years] of your life you were working for Hitler," Morrison says, "And then you realize, 'Oh my god, it's Hitler!'" Morrison further explains, "Not only is he a Nazi Superman, he's a Nazi Superman that knows his entire society, though it looks utopian, was built on the bones of the dead. Ultimately it's wrong and it must be destroyed." The issue will see the caped hero going up against enemies he knows are right, as he comes to terms with the fact that the principles he was raised with are wrong.

As it happens, Robert Sharp explored this possibility in his chapter "Could Superman Have Joined the Third Reich? The Importance and Shortcomings of Moral Upbringing" in Superman and Philosophy: What Would the Man of Steel Do?. His tale starts like so:

It’s 1926, and on a small farm with a few fields of wheat, a meteorite has just charred its way through a good bit of the crop. The farmer who owns the land is dismayed. His life has been hard since the Great War, even though prices for his food have skyrocketed, at least in terms of the actual bills carried around. In fact, one of his neighbors joked that he needed a wheelbarrow to carry around the cash to buy a loaf of bread, given how worthless the money had become. He and his wife are barely scraping by. Perhaps it is just as well that they had not been able to have children. Where would they find the money? His wife is fond of saying, “God will provide,” but sometimes he has doubts. And now a large part of his best field has been destroyed by a rock from space!

    As the farmer heads toward the damaged area, he calls back to his wife to bring a shovel in case there are any scattered fires to smother. He can see the hot smoke from the house, though the meteor itself is buried. His wife is almost half way to him when he reaches the crater, his eyes widening. “Magda!” he shouts, with a mixture of awe and anxiety, “Magda, bring a blanket! There is … a child!” The words seemed distant from him, as though said by someone else. His wife, believing she has misheard, runs toward him, shovel in hand.

    “Jonas? What is it? What is wrong?” she asks, her hands trembling. As she nears her husband she can see him, just emerging from some sort of space pod—a small boy! A gift from God! Her prayers are finally answered. Here in the German heartland, a miracle occurs, one that will soon have profound consequences for the world at large. The small child that had landed on Jonas and Magda Kuhn’s farm was the Übermensch himself, a “super man.” The Übermensch would vindicate Hitler’s claim that the New World Order would arise in Germany and prove that nation’s superiority.

    Only three years later, young Karl Kuhn, as he was named in the adoption papers, would join the Hitler Youth. Indoctrinated into the cause, his character was formed by the Nazi Party. He never knew any other life, and when the war finally came, Hitler used his young prodigy as the ultimate super-weapon. The war was over before it had begun, as the Allies had no counter to such raw power. A farm boy from the middle of nowhere had helped the Nazis take over the world.

"...Or Not" is the title of the following section, and through the rest of the chapter Sharp explains the different ways this story could go and how moral character and develop influence it. (See also the four other chapters in the book on Superman and Nietzsche for more on the Übermensch—and why the true Übermensch may be named Lex.)

As countless others do, I look forward to seeing Grant Morrison's version of this "what if" story in Multiversity—and in the meantime, be sure to pick up Superman and Philosophy!

Superman and Philosophy: First chapter available for free

While preparing my nearly-monthly update to my personal blog, I noticed that Wiley has made my Superman and Philosophy chapter, "Moral Judgment: The Power That Makes Superman Human," available for free at its website.

In this chapter, I explain how Superman's powers don't make him immune to the need to make difficult moral choices that can't be solved by simple rules (much less super-strength). For examples, the chapter draws Superman's execution of three Kryptonians villains (including an alternate version of General Zod), which led to his self-imposed exile from Earth, as well as his more recent walk across America in the "Grounded" storyline (which I discussed previously here and here).

Superman and Philosophy cover and table of contents

It's been a long wait--for me, at least!--but the cover to Superman and Philosophy is finally available (and visible to your right). As I said on my personal blog after I first saw it, I love how it parallels the Batman and Philosophy cover in general layout and title font, since the two volumes bookend my tenure with the series to date.

Here is the table of contents--I'll share more about the book as publication approaches!

Part One 
The Big Blue Boy Scout: Ethics, Judgment, and Reason

1 Moral Judgment: The Power That Makes Superman Human
Mark D. White

2 Action Comics! Superman and Practical Reason
Brian Feltham

3 Can the Man of Tomorrow Be the Journalist of Today?
Jason Southworth and Ruth Tallman

4 Could Superman Have Joined the Third Reich? The Importance and Shortcomings of Moral Upbringing
Robert Sharp

Part Two
Truth, Justice, and American Way: What Do They Mean?

5 Clark Kent Is Superman! The Ethics of Secrecy
Daniel Malloy

6 Superman and Justice
Christopher Robichaud

7 Is Superman an American Icon?
Andrew Terjesen

Part Three
The Will to Superpower: Nietzsche, the Übermensch, and Existentialism

8 Rediscovering Nietzsche’s Übermensch in Superman as a Heroic Ideal
Arno Bogaerts

9 Superman or Last Man: The Ethics of Superpower
David Gadon

10 Superman: From Anti-Christ to Christ-Type
Adam Barkman

11 Superman Must Be Destroyed! Lex Luthor as Existentialist Anti-Hero
Sarah Donovan and Nick Richardson

Part Four
The Ultimate Hero: What Do We Expect from Superman?

12 Superman’s Revelation: The Problem of Violence in Kingdom Come
David Hatfield

13 A World Without a Clark Kent?
Randall M. Jensen

14 The Weight of the World: How Much Is Superman Morally Responsible For?
Audrey L. Anton

Part Five
Superman and Humanity: A Match Made in Krypton?

15 Superman and Man: What a Kryptonian Can Teach Us About Humanity
Leonard Finkelman

16 Can the Man of Steel Feel Our Pain? Sympathy and Superman
Andrew Terjesen

17 World’s Finest Philosophers: Superman and Batman on Human Nature
Carsten Fogh Nielsen

Part Six
Of Superman and Superminds: Who Is Superman, Anyway?

18 “It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s … Clark Kent?” Superman and the Problem of Identity
Nicolas Michaud

19 Superman Family Resemblance
Dennis Knepp

20 Why Superman Should Not Be Able to Read Minds
Mahesh Ananth

Another perspective on why Batman doesn't kill--and the problems with it

This week's Batman and Robin #8 (written by Peter Tomasi and illustrated by Patrick Gleason and Mick Gray) was a welcome denouement to the Morgan Ducard/Nobody storyline that culminated at the end of #7 when, as Bruce explains to Alfred, "Nobody's dead. Damian killed him." (Imagine parsing that statement if you hadn't been keeping up with the storyline!) As Bruce and Damian recover from their injuries (gee, good thing Bruce hasn't gotten thrashed lately in any other title), father and son talk about what happened. Bruce shares his oral diary, revealing his own desire to kill Ducard, to show Damian that the urge is natural but that he must never give into it.

Bruce argues that he adheres to a principle of not killing that doesn't "allow for exceptions." This sounds very much like a Kantian perfect duty, which is fantastic--to a degree. In an ideal world, it is easy to say "I will not kill" or "I will not lie," regardless of the circumstances, and it is an admirable person that tries his or her best to stick to them. But such a person must also recognize that there can be circumstances that will force him or her to question whether these duties or principles are truly absolute.

Take Kant's infamous "murderer at the door" example: Your good friend shows up at your door one day, frantically trying to escape someone who's trying to kill him. You agree to hide your friend, and minutes later the would-be murderer shows up, asking if your friend is about. What do you do: lie to the murderer to save your friend, or tell the truth and help the murderer?

Kant said you must not lie. According to  him, you have one concern and one concern alone: following your strict duty not to lie. If you tell the truth (or simply say nothing, which will save the same effect), your hands will be clean. If you do right, you're not responsible for anything that happens as a consequence, whereas if you were to lie, and the murderer went on to kill someone else (in mistake, perhaps), you would be responsible for that.

But Kant was wrong, and he was wrong by his own standards. The murderer-at-the-door example appeared in the Berlin Press as a retort to Benjamin Constant, a French statesman, but in his more considered work, he wrote that no one can apply simple rules, including the duties one derives from the categorical imperative, to real-life situations without using judgment. For instance, even if you decided not to lie to the murderer at the door, you would need to use judgment to decide what to do instead: tell the truth, stay silent, or say "look--a squirrel!"

More relevant is the need for judgment to settle conflicts between obligations, and this provides a more reasonable answer to the murderer-at-the-door example (and much-needed perspective on Bruce and Damian's discussion). Clearly there is more than one principle, duty, or obligation at play when the murderer comes to your door--specifically, you should also help save your friend's life, based on a moral principle to prevent wrongful harm to others. I think most morally reflective people would consider that to be a more important principle in this case than the principle that you shouldn't lie. Of course, this judgment is contingent on the context of the situation: the harm threatened is severe and the lie would be to a person intent on doing wrong. In a different situation, the judgment may be different, though the two principles are the same, because the context gives the principles different relative weight.

In the second panel above, Damian essentially states the opposing principle to his father's: "But if killing them is the only way to stop them..." Bruce knows this principle well: while he says in this issue that he made a promise to himself ("and on the souls of my parents") not to kill criminals, he also made a promise that night (as seen in countless retellings of his origin) to make sure what happened to him doesn't happen to anyone else. Bruce and Damian recognize both a principle of preventing wrongful harm and a principle of not killing--but for Bruce, the latter principle always takes precedence, where I think Damian is more open to weighing the principles against each other in any given situation. (I realize this may be due to his early training by the League of Assassins, which leads him to minimize the importance of the no-killing principle. If nothing else, Bruce is helping him see the importance of this principle by adhering to it with no exceptions--the opposite extreme to Damian's dear mother and grandfather.)

Bruce does give other rationales, familiar from previous Batman stories in which killing has been discussed. He gives the virtue argument, that killing makes you a lesser person ("bankrupts your soul") and makes you no better than those you're sworn to fight. (His caution against indulging vengeance can be considered part of this, and is the clearest argument he makes; few would defend a principle based on vengeance.) He also presents the consequentialist argument ("reinforcing the same cycle of violence") that killing only leads to more killing. But note that neither of these escape the need for judgment: is your purity of character more important than saving lives, and does killing necessarily lead to more killing--or may judicious use of it lead to less deaths instead?

Bruce's continued idealism on this issue is particularly welcome following Geoff Johns' flip comments about killing earlier this week. If we give him the benefit of the doubt, Johns may have been thinking much the same as I wrote here when he said, "there are heroes that, when they need to cross that line, they do it," citing Green Lantern, Aquaman, and Wonder Woman as examples. I would just like to see more discussions like the one in Batman and Robin #8, in which these heroes defend their decisions and explain why they "need to cross that line." I'm less interested in whether or not they kill than I am in how they justify it.

-----

Kant presented his murderer-at-the-door example in an essay titled "On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns," available in the Hackett edition of his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Philosophers have spilled much ink and killed many trees trying to reconcile the absolutist position given there with the rest of his philosophy; my favorite is Christine Korsgaard's "The Right to Lie: Kant on Dealing with Evil," available in her book Creating the Kingdom of Ends, which focuses on the difference between ideal and nonideal moral theory. Finally, I wrote about Batman and killing, relying chiefly on the Joker and the trolley problem (which can easily be framed as a conflict of principles as above), in my chapter "Why Doesn't Batman Kill the Joker?" in Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul.

What do chocolate and radishes have to do with Green Lantern?

At The Atlantic today, Hans Villarica interviews Dr. Roy Baumeister, one of the psychologists chiefly responsible for the ego-depletion or "muscle" theory of willpower. Under this conception, people have a limited amount of willpower at any given time; as they use it, it is depleted in the short term but strengthened in the long term (just like a muscle used in work or resistance training). In the interview, Baumeister describes one of his early experiments in which he tempted people with chocolate while asking them to eat radishes instead; this used some of their reserves of willpower, leaving less for other tasks, compared to the control group who got to eat the chocolate.

In addition to informing my academic work on willpower and character, Baumeister's work was the basis for one of my chapters in Green Lantern and Philosophy: No Evil Shall Escape this Book. In chapter 2, "Flexing the Mental Muscle: Green Lanterns and the Nature of Willpower," I draw from years of stories to show that Lanterns' willpower has long been portrayed as a scarce resource. Below, I list some of the quotes I used in the chapter, showing that the version of willpower used in the Green Lantern stories corresponds with Baumeister's work--some even decades before Baumeister and his colleagues published it!

On willpower as a muscle:

"Your mind is like a muscle unused for years. You forgot how to use the power ring." (Sinestro to Hal Jordan, Green Lantern: Rebirth #5, April 2005)

"...the will is very like a muscle. In Abin Sur, that muscle was once extraordinarily strong—so strong that the Guardians of the Universe made him custodian of a battery of power, an amplifier of the will... and of a power ring, a device to focus that amplified will." (Action Comics Weekly #642, June 1989)

On willpower as a scarce resource (which can be replenished):

"[That] took lots of willpower. That—and escaping from the energy net—has left me exhausted. I need to regain my strength." (Action Comics Weekly #625, December 1988)

"I know my ring’s got limitless power—but it is powered by my willpower. Have I got the strength necessary to make this work?" (Green Lantern, vol. 2, #149, February 1982)

"Willpower’s like a muscle, and I’ve gotten better with it year after year!" (Green Lantern, vol. 2, #200, May 1986)

On willpower, focus, and distraction:

"Can’t take much more of this. I’ve been up all night trying to find the alien... . I’m exhausted... keeping this building together is taking all my concentration... all my will!" (Action Comics Weekly #628, January 1989)

"Finding it hard to concentrate, aren’t you? With me hitting you, I mean! And unless you can focus your willpower, your ring can’t work!" (Hal to Sinestro, Green Lantern, vol. 2, #124, January 1980)

For more on Baumeister's work, pick up his latest book (cowritten with John Tierney), cunningly titled Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength.

Torture Comics: The New Avengers Cross the Line

Ah, comics.

The other day I was chatting about New Avengers #22 with with my friend Christine of the fantastic Daredevil blog The Other Murdock Papers. I mentioned how how out-of-character it seemed that Daredevil would exclaim "Toss her!" when the New Avengers are trying to extract information from Victoria Hand. (Remember that New Avengers scribe Brian Michael Bendis wrote a lengthy and highly acclaimed run on Daredevil.) Wolverine does in fact toss her--out the window--after which the non-powered Hand falls at least a dozen stories onto a car below.

My concerns about characterization--at least in terms of dialogue--were somewhat alleviated, however, when the whole affair was revealed to be an magical illusion shown to Hand by Dr. Strange in order to get the desired information. Christine was appalled, nonetheless, that Matt (along with the rest of the team) simply stood and watched while Dr. Strange tortured Ms. Hand. (At least Matt exclaims "God!" as she screamed in agony. I wonder, is that better than Grant Morrison having Superman exclaiming "GD" in a recent issue of Action Comics? Judges?) Strange's spell is even called "The Death Illusion Spell on the Shadow," lest there be any doubt regarding its intended effect.

Here we go again, kids! I still remember vividly the controversy over the torture of supervillains at the hands of Ray Palmer, Hal Jordan, and (yes) Oliver Queen during Justice League: Cry for Freedom several years ago. (See issues 3 and 4 in particular for some good dialogue on the topic.) I even addressed the torture debate in an op-ed I coauthored drawing a parallel with the issue of whether Batman should kill the Joker, based on the first chapter of Batman and Philosophy (and itself a topic recently revisited by Comics Alliance). 

Are Dr. Strange's actions any different because they were the result of an illusion, a magical spell, rather than actually tossing her out of the window? Clearly not: in the legal/political sense, torture is usually defined as inflicting physical or mental suffering for the express purpose of obtaining information. (Ssee, for instance, Jeremy Waldron's book Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs, pp. 191-4, in which he surveys the various prohibitions of torture in official government documents around the world.) The whole point of waterboarding, after all, to make people think they are drowning, not actually drown them. Just because Strange has the ability to make Ms. Hand think she is dying without actually threatening her life doesn't make her subjective experience any less horrible--or any less torturous.

So it was torture--but was it justified? When it comes to the use of torture, someone people say no categorically, and others would allow for some exceptions, such as "ticking time-bomb scenarios." Let's say we grant exceptions in such rare emergencies: does the situation faced by the New Avengers qualify? In what seems like the start of a new Dark Reign, Norman Osborn has once again put together his own faux Avengers team and has masterfully manipulated public sentiment and the media against the Avengers (both Steve Roger's A-team and the New Avengers). They suspect Ms. Hand--the team's liaison with Rogers--is also working for her old H.A.M.M.E.R. boss, and they want her to lead them to him.

Osborn is bad news, of course, but does this represent a "ticking time-bomb," a threat so severe and immediate that (to some people) it justifies nearly any means taken to prevent it, including torture? It's a judgment call, of course, but I hardly think so, unless they uncover evidence indicating immediate and catastrophic plans of Osborn's. As of yet, however, all they know is that he's made them look like chumps--and they certainly aren't helping themselves either.

Of course, Mockingbird clocked Hand before Strange put the whammy on her--and Daredevil himself has certainly used his fists to empty many a bar of lowlifes when trying to get information on a case. Maybe it's just because, as comics fans, we're used to seeing heroes beat up bad guys, but we usualy don't think of this as torture--though, when a real life police officer or detective does it, we take it more seriously. Victoria Hand is an experienced and trained former S.H.I.E.L.D. and H.A.M.M.E.R. agent; she probably wouldn't crack merely from being beaten up. She didn't crack under Dr. Strange's spell either--but was he justified in using it in the first place?

I don't think so. Do you?

-----

By the way, Christopher Robichaud touches on the torture issue in his chapter "Fighting the Good Fight: Military Ethics and the Kree-Skrull War," in The Avengers and Philosophy: Earth's Mightiest Thinkers, now available for pre-order.

First chapter of The Avengers and Philosophy available for free download

Thanks to Mitters' tumblr, I discovered that there are three samples from The Avengers and Philosophy: Earth's Mightiest Thinkers available at Wiley's site for the book: the table of contents, the index (in case you're curious who's included in the book--I'm happy to say most everybody!), and best of all, the first chapter, written by yours truly.

Titled "Superhuman Ethics Class with the Avengers Prime," it introduces the three basic schools of ethics--utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics--using Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor (respectively), and the conflicts between them, as examples. (The title comes from Avengers Academy, as I discuss here and here.)

Download it and let me know what you think, and don't forget to preorder the book, which comnes out in May!

New chapters on Captain America and Thor exclusive to free "Superheroes" Kindle book

Wiley just released their free Kindle book, Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture, featuring one chapter from each of the superhero-themed books in the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture series, including the forthcoming titles on Superman and the Avengers, as well as two new and exclusive chapters, written by yours truly, on Captain America and Thor.

Here are the contents:

PART ONE: Superheroes Exclusives

1: Lord Odin Have Mercy: Justice and Punishment in Asgard—Mark D. White

2: Captain America and the Virtue of Modesty—Mark D. White

PART TWO: DC Superheroes

3: Is Superman an American Icon?—Andrew Terjesen (from Superman and Philosophy—edited by Mark D. White)

4: The Blackest Night for Aristotle’s Account of Emotions—Jason Southworth (from Green Lantern and Philosophy— edited by Jane Dryden and Mark D. White)

5: Why Doesn’t Batman Kill the Joker? —Mark D. White (from Batman and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White and Robert Arp)

6: Can We Steer This Rudderless World? Kant, Rorschach, Retributivism, and Honor—Jacob M. Held (from Watchmen and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White)

PART THREE: Marvel Superheroes

7: Forgivers Assemble! —Daniel P. Malloy (from Avengers and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White)

8: Does Peter Parker Have a Good Life? —Neil Mussett (from Spider-Man and Philosophy, edited by Jonathan J. Sanford)

9: The Stark Madness of Technology—George A. Dunn (from Iron Man and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White)

10: Amnesia, Personal Identity, and the Many Lives of Wolverine—Jason Southworth (from X-Men and Philosophy, edited by Rebecca Housel and J. Jeremy Wisnewski)

If an economist had written All-Star Superman...

This is great: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal takes an extremely practical approach to the life of Superman, part of it resembling Mahesh Ananth and Ben Dixon's chapter titled "Should Bruce Wayne Have Become Batman?" from Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul (questioning whether superheroics are the morally best use of Bruce Wayne's wealth and time).