>>149361088
In this instance, I was referring more to an 'ethically' or 'morally' standpoint. You're not wrong that DC fails on enough other fronts for it to be a larger talking point and probably a larger one.
As has been stated a thousand times before, ultimately the decision comes down to legacy characters in the big two being evergreen either because it is necessary for them to do so, an unwillingness to adapt or try something new, or some of both.
If we want to be (very) charitable to DC and Marvel? They haven't tried killing the Joker because the reader base will not accept Batman comics without him, and Batman, Superman and the others are largely what drives their sales. They're risk averse because they don't have the luxury of capital to take those kinds of risks.
Being just a bit more cynical (read: realistic) however? They've no interest in changing the formula. Personally I think there's a mix of both at play here, but whatever the case, the bottom line here is the bottom line. DC's reticence doesn't stem from any narrative or moral obligation, but from one simply of being financial.
However, the OP asked for the stupidest "moral" of comics. They're asking about the moral question. Even if the way they're asking it is pretty disingenuous.
And to answer the moral question of 'no kill rules' with super heroes, you're eliminating the question of vulnerability and risk to apprehending someone versus outright killing them. It's a bit of a philosophical question for sure, but supposing for a moment that it risks as much to your personal safety to non-lethally vs non lethally stop a threat. You aren't putting yourself in harm's way to do either. Whether that be because of super powers or some other explanation that renders them not a threat to you, or one that is minimal. What then is the moral imperative? (CONT)
