Is Spider-Man responsible for Uncle Ben's death? With

[Parthenios]

"With great power comes great responsibility."

We all know the story, but in brief: Peter Parker has the opportunity to stop a dangerous mugger but actively abstains from getting involved (because he doesn't want to help the sleezy promoter). The criminal escapes and shortly later and murders Peter's Uncle Ben.

The question: does Peter Parker have Uncle Ben's blood on his hands? Spider-Man didn't pull the trigger, and he's free to help or not help as he chooses. But he also was given an opportunity to stop the criminal and knew the risk he posed before not acting

Uncle Ben's words "with great power comes great responsibility" certainly implies that those with the power to intervene have a responsibility to do so. But this also ignores the agency of those with the great power (Spider-Man didn't choose to have powers for example).

I guess this is a variation of the trolley problem: if a trolley is hurtling towards people on the track, and you can press the brakes and stop the trolley, have you killed the people if you choose inaction?

 

[Bor Gullet]

 

[SilverX]

Brah its a tragic backstory needed to create the hero.

 

[Era Uma Vez]

 

[Richiek]

With?

 

[Sandstar]

No, of course not. Spider-man isn't responsible for the actions taken by someone else, simply because he didn't stop him when he had the chance. That's ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 4367]

He has 18.2% of the responsibility.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

 

[Digital Dinosaur]

No. The moral of the origin story is not "you're an accessory to bad things if you don't stop them". It's "when you have power, you can make a real difference that matters more than selfish gain."

Uncle Ben dying is just used as a sufficiently traumatic example to force Peter to internalize the lesson and never forget it.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

He's not DIRECTLY responsible for it, but he's indirectly responsible. That's kind of the point, and part of why Ben's words resonate with him so strongly. Because he knows that he could've stopped it and he didn't.

 

[bluexy]

I answered yes, but I do disagree with the specificity of the answer. "Choosing not to stop the murderer is the same as choosing Uncle Ben's murder," is incorrect. But yes, Spider-Man had the opportunity to stop a criminal and chose not to. It was a decision that bore negative consequences. The key point is that Spider-Man had a choice which he knew would bear negative consequences and chose it knowing that. As such, he does bear responsibility. That the consequences are personal rather than happening to someone else doesn't change that he's responsible.

The moral of the story isn't that you should do good things if you have the opportunity. It's that you must, when you have the opportunity. The story doesn't even create a moral quandry, making it complicated or challenging for Spider-Man to have done something. It was easy and obvious for Spider-Man to have helped, but he didn't.

Kind of like voting.

 

[nsilvias]

no but he could have helped prevent it

 

[Parthenios]

Click to shrink...

If Peter's conscience showed him a consequences table

Choice | (Outcome)
-----------------------------
Kill Uncle Ben | (Uncle Ben is dead)
Do nothing | (Uncle Ben is dead)
Intervene even though I don't want to | (Uncle Ben is alive)

Clearly he would be pointing at a menu and choosing "kill Uncle Ben"

So is choosing an action the same as choosing it's consequences?

 

[Uzumaki Goku]

The whole point is that it's something he could've prevented, but he didn't.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

If Peter's conscience showed him a consequences table

Choice | (Outcome)
-----------------------------
Kill Uncle Ben | (Uncle Ben is dead)
Do nothing | (Uncle Ben is dead)
Intervene even though I don't want to | (Uncle Ben is alive)

Clearly he would be pointing at a menu and choosing "kill Uncle Ben"

So is choosing an action the same as choosing it's consequences?

Click to shrink...

This is the intent vs. impact argument. His intentions were to say fuck the promoter, get robbed, but his impact is that he allowed two crimes to take place as a result of his intention.

 

[Birdie]

I mean going by what the WWE has been doing I think anyone now would be morally in the right to NOT help a promoter.

 

[GreenMamba]

I guess this is a variation of the trolley problem: if a trolley is hurtling towards people on the track, and you can press the brakes and stop the trolley, have you killed the people if you choose inaction?

Click to shrink...

You may not have killed them but you sure as shit didn't save them!

Which is the crux of Spider-Man's origin. He didn't cause Uncle Ben's death.

But he could have done something to prevent it.

 

[Redcrayon]

I think the difference is that in the trolley problem, you can see the guaranteed consequences.

'With great power, comes great responsibility' is such a great line on the kind of epic pathos and hubris Marvel comics dealt in at the time, but I'm not really sure it applies to direct responsibility for Ben's death. Peter interprets the line as that exact responsibility applying to him, and why his guilt is his driving force, but it's also just a great reason to intervene in everything for a comic strip hero going forward. Which Peter then constantly interprets as a requirement to throw himself into impossible odds on a regular basis. I always liked the 'sinister six' story arcs where Peter feels like he has to singlehandedly deal with his rogue's gallery all at the same time and usually gets his arse handed to him until his allies pile in too, usually with a 'for crying out loud ask for help when you need it' moment.

With the burglar (at least in the comic reprints I read as a kid, I'm less familiar with the films), he robs the joint Parker is appearing as a masked wrestler in, but there's no way Peter could have known the burglar would go to their house looking for cash following a rumour from another villain. He was 15/16 (?), enjoying the first bit of real success he had ever had, in a building full of adults. Being a TV wrestler doesn't mean you have to tackle fleeing gunmen making off with just a sack of cash. If he had done so, the consequences could have been more people dead, although obviously it's framed that he doesn't think of that, he's just being obnoxious and doesn't think he has a duty to do superhero stuff.

Obviously, once he has all the information, that gives him the utterly insane driving force for a teenager to confront everything, stop everything, save everyone, on top of looking after an elderly relative and having no money and the police on his tail. I'd say, no, he's not responsible, but that he thinks he is is an element what makes him so relatable, likable and tragic as a character.

 

[MadLaughter]

It's not 0% or 100%, it's a spectrum.

If Peter shot Uncle Ben himself, it would be 100%.
If Peter didn't know the guy was a robber and just walked past him in a hallway, it would be 0%.

But Peter knew that the person was willing to threaten serious violence to others.
And he 100% could have incapacitated the guy. (His share of the blame would be lower if he was small and weak and knew he would die, but still not zero)

So he is PARTIALLY responsible. The debate should exist as to what big a fraction it is.

I put it at about 75%. He's not like, LEGALLY liable, I guess, but the legal system is obviously not a perfect representation of justice and morality.

 

[MadLaughter]

With the burglar (at least in the comic reprints I read as a kid, I'm less familiar with the films), he robs the joint Parker is appearing as Spider-Man as, but there's no way Peter could have known the burglar would go to their house looking for cash following a rumour from another villain.

Click to shrink...

He couldn't have known the guy would rob -HIS- uncle, but he could've made a reasonable assumption that the guy would hurt someone at some point.

 

[Parthenios]

If the robber announced on his way out "I'm killing Uncle Ben next!" does that change the extent Spider-Man is responsible?

 

[ItIsOkBro]

having a sick burn in no way makes you responsible for death

 

[Bjomesphat]

I hate it when polls have yes or no answers, but with wrong explanations. Just have the poll say yes or no, don't assume your opinion of it is correct.

But yeah, he's responsible, maybe not directly. Choosing not to stop a criminal just means someone else is potentially in danger. He didn't choose Uncle Ben to die though, that's just silly.

 

[Deleted member 30544]

That is the question that drives the moral dilema of Spider-man as pop culture icon and for us as sociaty as a whole and that will continue to be analyzed by philosophers for ions to come.

Not to mention the tangible example of the "butterFly effect" - A Spider fails to move it's legs in Downtown Manhattan - an Uncle Ben dies in queens.

 

[Chaos Legion]

Raimi - Eh
Webb - Kinda yeah
MCU - Uncle who?

 

[Redcrayon]

He couldn't have known the guy would rob -HIS- uncle, but he could've made a reasonable assumption that the guy would hurt someone at some point.

Click to shrink...

Actually, I'm misremembering this- looking at the panel again, the guy isn't even armed- all Peter sees is a guy running towards him and a security guard yelling 'stop, thief!'

I'd say that, yes, Peter could have stopped him easily at no risk to himself or others, even for a few seconds would do it. But similarly, there isn't enough danger there to assume they guy would go on to kill someone- he's nicking a suitcase full of (presumably) valuables in a tv station full of telephones in a city full of armed police.

Obviously Stan Lee makes it implicit at the end that he should have acted or will feel forever at fault. I know I would. But the link between that and being held responsible for anything further that the thief does to anyone is quite extreme, and is the reason why Parker is a larger than life character with a big guilt complex, a big hero complex, big problems and and big storylines. I always thought him not being able to tell Aunt May due to his secret identity, and when it comes out, was a great tension too, his only safe place in his home with the person that raised him constantly reminds him of his biggest mistake and what it cost both of them, before the story even starts.

This was interesting on how it was treated between his first appearance and how it is recapped in Spider-man #1

Did Stan and Steve deliberately soften Spider-Man’s origin? ‹ Scott Edelman

www.scottedelman.com

The amazing fantasy #15 panels:

Amazing Fantasy #15 | Wiki | 🕸Webslinger Amino🕸 Amino

Part 1 It is Peter Parker's 16th birthday and his Aunt and Uncle give him a microscope for his bir

aminoapps.com

 

[DragonSJG]

He could have prevented it, which is the moral

 

[Neo C.]

Yes, he's partially responsible.

 

[MadLaughter]

Actually, I'm misremembering this- looking at the panel again, the guy isn't even armed- all Peter sees is a guy running towards him and a security guard yelling 'stop, thief!'

I'd say that, yes, Peter could have stopped him easily at no risk to himself or others, even for a few seconds would do it. But similarly, there isn't enough danger there to assume they guy would go on to kill someone- he's nicking a suitcase full of (presumably) valuables.

This was interesting on how it was treated between his first appearance and how it is recapped in Spider-man #1

Did Stan and Steve deliberately soften Spider-Man’s origin? ‹ Scott Edelman

www.scottedelman.com

The amazing fantasy #15 panels:

Amazing Fantasy #15 | Wiki | 🕸Webslinger Amino🕸 Amino

Part 1 It is Peter Parker's 16th birthday and his Aunt and Uncle give him a microscope for his bir

aminoapps.com

Click to shrink...

Ahh okay, I was going off of the Raimi scene where he very much has a pistol (and assumed that was the comic canon)

 

[adj_noun]

"With great power comes great moral ambivalence."

 

[Redcrayon]

Ahh okay, I was going off of the Raimi scene where he very much has a pistol (and assumed that was the comic canon)

Click to shrink...

I could have sworn he did in the comic, maybe my subconcious has inserted the Raimi scene into the place where I remembered the original! :D

It's interesting that, considering that Stan Lee played several aging security guard types in films (I think?), in the original panels the guard pretty much spells it directly out to the reader and Peter. That he could have stopped the thief easily with little effort even as a young man with no superpowers, it would have taken seconds out of his day. All he needed to do was delay him on his way to the elevator, not incapacitate the guy.

 

[GarthLordOfTheSith]

No. The thug that shot uncle Ben is responsible for uncle bens death.

 

[TheGhost]

When was the last time comics had a memorable line like that?

And yes Pete is responsible

Cops said stop him
All he had to do was stick a leg out

 

[Blue Skies]

Society is to blame

 

[Pai Pai Master]

I mean it's kinda the crux of the Spider-Man character. He feels responsible even if he didn't pull the trigger himself, so he understands the weight of Uncle Ben's words. And strives to never let it happen again, to always be vigilant and always do his best to help people going forward no matter the cost to his personal life.

 

[Sacrilicious]

If Peter's conscience showed him a consequences table

Choice | (Outcome)
-----------------------------
Kill Uncle Ben | (Uncle Ben is dead)
Do nothing | (Uncle Ben is dead)
Intervene even though I don't want to | (Uncle Ben is alive)

Clearly he would be pointing at a menu and choosing "kill Uncle Ben"

So is choosing an action the same as choosing it's consequences?

Click to shrink...

It's important to distinguish hindsight and foresight here. If you can't foresee the outcome, choosing an action can't be the same as choosing the consequence.

Only the first option has clear foresight. The outcome is a direct consequence of the choice.

The other two can't be foreseen from the choice. He could have made a difference through his choice, so his guilt makes a lot of sense, but he can't be truly responsible if the outcome wasn't known to him at the time.

There's a more complex moral question if he did know but still did nothing (see the trolley problem) but imo not knowing makes it pretty cut and dry.

 

[Redcrayon]

I love everything about Spider-man's origin. It's such a rounded character, that even as a smart, kind, gentle kid who gets bullied a lot and lost his parents, he gets a taste of power and money and becomes an irresponsible jerk. Not for long, just a few hours, when loads of other kids were like that for years and grew out of it (or not) with zero consequences. But for Peter, it's long enough for the sense of guilt over the connection he eventually makes between that moment and Ben's death to haunt him forever and fundamentally change his life even more than the superpowers. Genuinely one of the things that stuck with me as a nerdy kid, that it wasn't the fantasy stuff that got you with Spider-man, it was about character. How many comics have their defining moment in the first appearance like that. Some characters are reinvented over and over again, but they got it right out of the gate with Peter, and it wasn't even about the powers, it was about the responsibility. My daughter adores him too (although she thinks the worst part is that the webs are a pain to draw for her) :D

 

[NinjaScooter]

No, Uncle Ben shouldn't have messed with that guy.

 

[jph139]

Yes, it is. I think that's ultimately the brilliant of Spider-Man, taking that classic "Twilight Zone" twist and applying it to superhero comics. Because it takes something we all know: that there are small evils everywhere, every day, that we have the power to stop. We don't, though, because the sacrifice seems too big, or the consequences seem too small. But placing such a tiny action - stopping a thief who's no threat to you - next to such a huge consequence - one of the most important people in your life being killed - you intuit the entire ethos of heroism.

It's something people need to carry with them every day - social responsibility. Just because something isn't our fault doesn't mean we're not responsible for it.

 

[backpropaganda]

I love everything about Spider-man's origin. It's such a rounded character, that even as a smart, kind, gentle kid who gets bullied a lot and lost his parents, he gets a taste of power and money and becomes an irresponsible jerk. Not for long, just a few hours, when loads of other kids were like that for years and grew out of it (or not) with zero consequences. But for Peter, it's long enough for the sense of guilt over the connection he eventually makes between that moment and Ben's death to haunt him forever and fundamentally change his life even more than the superpowers. Genuinely one of the things that stuck with me as a nerdy kid, that it wasn't the fantasy stuff that got you with Spider-man, it was about character. How many comics have their defining moment in the first appearance like that. Some characters are reinvented over and over again, but they got it right out of the gate with Peter, and it wasn't even about the powers, it was about the responsibility. My daughter adores him too (although she thinks the worst part is that the webs are a pain to draw for her) :D

Click to shrink...

Spider-man is the GOAT, immediately impacted me as a kid and one of the few heroes who's superhero identity doesn't overshadow them as a person

 

[Deleted member 17388]

Uncle Ben's words "with great power comes great responsibility" certainly implies that those with the power to intervene have a responsibility to do so. But this also ignores the agency of those with the great power (Spider-Man didn't choose to have powers for example).

Click to shrink...

In Amazing Fantasy #15 Uncle Ben never said that, but his death is the catalyst for Peter to learn that: ""With great power there must also come great responsibility". It's his arc, his agency.
So that part would apply for Raimi's Spider-Man, for example.

Anyway, for Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man... lol, probably everyone's fault, everyone was a jerk and in those films :v

 

[Deleted member 23381]

No, Uncle Ben shouldn't have messed with that guy.

Click to shrink...

 

[Doggg]

If Ra's al Ghul had been Spider-Man's mentor, he'd tell him Uncle Ben was responsible for being so weak.

 

[VAD]

When was the last time comics had a memorable line like that?

Click to shrink...

"Everything dies" from Johnathan Hickman' Secret War mega event. It's not really as powerful as Spider-Man's motto but I remember it.

On topic, Peter is not responsible but he has a right to feel guilty about it. He couldn't have known he helped a murderer. By the way, is anyone who ever helped Uncle Ben's killer in his life as responsible than Peter?
Spider-Man has no responsibility in Ben's death but he has one in fighting crime and improving society.

 

[MikeProtagonist]

No, he isn't. If he is, he's also responsible for every single person that is robbed or otherwise violated while he is dealing with anything that is less important, and that's a ridiculous thing to impose on one person.

That Peter _thinks_ he is, is an important part of the character. But it's still ridiculous.

 

[Jodez99]

Spider-Man isn't immune to bullets, why should he be risking his life against people with guns just because he has sticky hands

 

[lazygecko]

He has this other less talked about super power called "Parker Luck" where every single time without fail when he decides to prioritise one thing above another, that other thing will inevitably come back to bite him in some way.

 

[Tace]

Click to shrink...

This. It's less about Peter actually being 100% responsible for it and more that he feels like he is, because he could've prevented it so easily had he not been selfish.

 

[greengr]

Hes as much rensposible for Bens Death as Aunt May for losing his marriage.

 

[Deleted member 17388]

Click to shrink...

They were smart not to show the Uncle's death but simply go to the Peter who already learned the lesson of using his powers for others.