Objectivism isn't hedonism.

I didn't say it was, although I can see how my reference to going to the beach implied it. I am using the term not to mean hedonism, but to mean keeping one's own interest paramount.

It's about doing what you rationally decide is in your best interest. If having supervillains running around is counter to your interests, and you have the means to do something about it, you certainly should.

I disagree in the case of superheroes without super-powers, because despite Batman's toys and crazy fighting skills, and Iron Man's suit, they're a lot more likely to get killed than, for instance, Superman is. I think keeping oneself alive is in one's greater interest than getting oneself killed.

In Iron Man 2, Stark is hauled into a Senate hearing, during which a senator demands he hand over his designs. Stark responds by giving a wildly popular speech about his property rights, telling his accusers: "You want my property? You can't have it!" He humiliates his opponents by winning over the crowd and concludes by telling them: "I will serve this great nation at the pleasure of myself."

And if that were the sum total of Tony Stark's actions as a superhero, ever, I might send him off to the Ayn Rand Institute. One speech does not a philosophy indicate, however.

I'm just not convinced that anyone would become a superhero and court death on a regular basis because that is how they protect their own best interests.

I'm agreeing with Steph here specifically WRT to Batman. So, what about his actions (say, most of them) seem to put his interests FIRST.

so, by definition, we as human beings are our for our own best interests, but Batman's adult life is focused on saving Gotham - and he does it at enormous peril to himself. He clearly likes to be rich, but his main interest isn't being rich.

I am sure there is a rift between the movies (any set) and the graphic novels, but take the 2nd Nolan movie. His actions at the very end of that movie are martyr like.

I honestly don't think that Objectivists would consider risking one's life (or risk of any kind, for that matter) to be inherently irrational if its done in the pursuit of something you value. In its own nutty way it's actually an ends-justify-the-means approach, not a cost/benefit check.

I linked to the Cracked article because I thought it was funny and topical. It does have more than one example, for whatever that's worth. But I've read one issue of Iron Man, and he wasn't in it, so that's just about all I know of the character.

There's an issue of Iron Man that doesn't have Iron Man in it?

That's Fraction for you. (It was the annual last year about the Mandarin.)

Ha, of course it was Fraction. I was surprised you hadn't read any of his other IM stuff.

On an unrelated note, I read Batman: Cataclysm when I was staying with Jars and was so disappointed. It took half the book for an issue to be something other than "OMG EARTHQUAKE!" And even then it was only mildly interesting.

On a different unrelated note, I read the latest Fables trade and it's reinvigorated my love of the series. Still going strong after 100 issues.

I can't remember what Willingham did that made me stop reading him. Time to go look at Wikipedia, I guess.

Ugh. The bullshit with Leslie Tompkins letting Stephanie Brown die to teach Batman a lesson. (Which has since been retconned like crazy.)

Ah, thank you. I remember him being a prick about it, and basically daring people to stop reading him, so I decided why not? It was remarkably easy. He's good, but he's not special.

Under whose hand was it retconned?

Under whose hand was it retconned?

Man, I cannot remember. It was post-One Year Later; that's about all I remember.