Superheroes: A dilemma

[Spekio]

True. Except here is what we DO know, for a certainty. Next year, millions of people will die around the world from easily preventable causes. And millions more after that. John Smith might turn out to be evil (but the odds of that are so small you have to grasp at straws), but if you press that button, they WILL die.

Of course, my arguments are not likely to convince anyone as the people who want to kill John Smith are driven by an emotional response- fear of the unknown and numerous studies have shown us that such things are immune to arguments. So, perhaps a little emotional stimulation is in order

No, don't strawman me. When people can get into power, they usually do. And when was the last time a ruler with absolute power was thought of as "good"?

The social contract means naught to him. He needs not, he wants not. How can he sympathize with the mere mortals that surround him?

Imagine when (and I do mean when, not if) he gets frustrated with our petty demands, and decide do set us the right way.

[Raw Shark]

Do you have any remote grasp of how massive a "fuck you" that is to all the people in this world who are suffering, who are oppressed, who are afraid of the very real tyrannies that now exist? That rather than even stand aside and let someone else handle these things, you would destroy that someone if you could, for fear that they might try to change you next.

I am aware. That's why I wait 3.5 weeks and then get really drunk before I kill the poor fucker. Maybe he fixes starving kids in Africa with that time (hey, wouldn't that be great), maybe he doesn't, but either way that's all he gets because, for better or worse, I am fucking terrified of him enough to murder his omnipotent ass.

[Grumman]

No, don't strawman me. When people can get into power, they usually do. And when was the last time a ruler with absolute power was thought of as "good"?

Rulers with absolute political power in real life have this power because they stole it, or because their predecessor stole it and they kept it. John Smith has absolute physical power, which is not a zero sum game, and was obtained without stealing it from innocent people. John Smith being strong doesn't make me weaker, no more than Albert Einstein being smart makes me stupider.

The social contract means naught to him. He needs not, he wants not. How can he sympathize with the mere mortals that surround him?

By being a better person than you are.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Can anybody actually lend any evidence to the supposition that "absolutely power corrupts absolutely"?

I mean, just the fact that totalitarian dictators have existed and did bad things is, in and of itself, not proof. Hitler had his beliefs long before he came into power, to name the most obvious example.

Further, the fact is that most view points that we would consider "evil" are typically born out of ignorance. Believing that a particular race is inferior or detrimental to society, for example. Super-intelligence would seem to preclude that.

[Simon_Jester]

Do you have any remote grasp of how massive a "fuck you" that is to all the people in this world who are suffering, who are oppressed, who are afraid of the very real tyrannies that now exist? That rather than even stand aside and let someone else handle these things, you would destroy that someone if you could, for fear that they might try to change you next.

I am aware. That's why I wait 3.5 weeks and then get really drunk before I kill the poor fucker.

How does making the decision while drunk help?

Do you commonly make decisions that involve life or death for other people while drunk? How does that impact your driver's license status?

Maybe he fixes starving kids in Africa with that time (hey, wouldn't that be great), maybe he doesn't, but either way that's all he gets because, for better or worse, I am fucking terrified of him enough to murder his omnipotent ass.

You seem to be admitting, at least implicitly, that this is not a logical decision, but that you would make it anyway.

Is that the case?

[TheHammer]

Do you have any remote grasp of how massive a "fuck you" that is to all the people in this world who are suffering, who are oppressed, who are afraid of the very real tyrannies that now exist? That rather than even stand aside and let someone else handle these things, you would destroy that someone if you could, for fear that they might try to change you next.

I am aware. That's why I wait 3.5 weeks and then get really drunk before I kill the poor fucker.

How does making the decision while drunk help?

Do you commonly make decisions that involve life or death for other people while drunk? How does that impact your driver's license status?

Pretty sure he is saying he has already made the decision. The getting drunk part is to help deal with the emotional fallout of enacting that decision, not the making of the decision itself.

Maybe he fixes starving kids in Africa with that time (hey, wouldn't that be great), maybe he doesn't, but either way that's all he gets because, for better or worse, I am fucking terrified of him enough to murder his omnipotent ass.

You seem to be admitting, at least implicitly, that this is not a logical decision, but that you would make it anyway.

Is that the case?

It is a perfectly logical decision if he believes with a great degree of certainty that at some point John Smith will become an oppressor rather than a benevolent dictator. And by then there will be no stopping him. To him the risk outweighs the reward. Sure there will still be the world's problems if he is killed, but those problems can be solved, through great effort or otherwise, by regular people. But an invulnerable, all powerful oppressor is a problem that can't be solved.

[Spekio]

Rulers with absolute political power in real life have this power because they stole it, or because their predecessor stole it and they kept it. John Smith has absolute physical power, which is not a zero sum game, and was obtained without stealing it from innocent people. John Smith being strong doesn't make me weaker, no more than Albert Einstein being smart makes me stupider.
....

Are you being obtuse on purpose? What would make Super John Smith incapable/unwilling to "steal" power?

By being a better person than you are.

Nice ad hominen. As someone pointed out, the risk outweights the rewards. If he were to become a dictator, 84´s boot metaphor would become a reality, and humanity would be defenseless.

[Scrib]

Maybe this is exactly the sort of tyrant that could work, who knows? Or maybe it wouldn't actually lead to tyranny after all.

Maybe, maybe not. But you can't know until you're in his power. At which point it's too late to do anything about it one way or another. Which is why you try to never let it get that far.

It seems to me that you're so frantic to find reasons that the new Superman guy COULD actually be this terrible force for evil, that you're totally ignoring both the potential for good, and the inherent injustice of killing someone for something they haven't done, haven't shown any sign of planning to do, and indeed... aren't even anywhere near doing, except that you fear they might do it.

I'm not ignoring the potential for good. I have simply weighed it against the potential for evil and picked another path.

Do you think it's normal for us to say "we should kill people UNLESS we are absolutely certain that their existence is a net positive?"

Your life must be terribly exciting if this is anywhere near a "normal" scenario.

And no, they won't be universally loved. They'll be feared, questioned. They'll have constant demands made of them. They want to go watch a football match at an English stadium? Well, turns out that the stadium was owned by a Russian that pillaged his countries natural resources. Now all those people are mad. He said something about what he likes in a woman? He's fat-shaming! He visited/save Country X? Country X is run by a dictator waging war against the press! Why won't he kill the rebels in Country Y! Why won't he make Country Z give women the right to drive?? You're assuming that he's well adjusted enough to handle this.

Given how real celebrities are, if John Smith really is super-intelligent he won't have much of a problem. Even people whose contributions to the world are limited to showing up in movies or football games are usually wildly popular, and become disliked only if they turn out to be raging assholes or drug addicts or cheating on their spouses.

How much more popular would someone be who did real good things every day, and who could credibly claim godlike power if they wanted to?

Which is why, besides some bleating about the unfairness of capitalism, no one expects much from them. Depending on how effective a hero he is he will certainly be loved. Universally? Nope. The pressure on him is not even comparable.

True. Except here is what we DO know, for a certainty. Next year, millions of people will die around the world from easily preventable causes. And millions more after that. John Smith might turn out to be evil (but the odds of that are so small you have to grasp at straws), but if you press that button, they WILL die.

Bullshit? Sorry, your argument requires that I buy into your notions. Without that, it's just the optimistic path dressed up.

...What notions? That human beings don't automatically default to evil?[/quote]
Not that. The whole list and the attempt at some rigorous formulation of human behavior that would have the metahuman acting exactly in a way that would validate his argument.

What exactly makes it so hard for you to believe that a person with nothing to fear would do good, or at least net good? Why did you even start this thread if you are that certain you already know the answer? It's nuts.

I honestly wasn't sure when I made the thread,like I said, I've been on the other side. Or perhaps I simply was and didn't know it? And anyway, it's not like one has to be on the fence to want to see opposing viewpoints no?

And yet you seem totally unaffected by this thing you claim to be "sympathetic" to. I don't think you "sympathize" with suffering people at all here.

You're not really in any position to make judgement about my sympathies from behind a computer screen tbh. Just because I don't have a few paragraphs discussing them doesn't mean that they don't exist. I imagine that for most people, the problem is immediately evident and I don't need to talk about it. (And if it wasn't, that clause about his body disappearing is there to make the point clearer)

Do you have any remote grasp of how massive a "fuck you" that is to all the people in this world who are suffering, who are oppressed, who are afraid of the very real tyrannies that now exist? That rather than even stand aside and let someone else handle these things, you would destroy that someone if you could, for fear that they might try to change you next.

Anyone with the button will hold the future of humanity in their hands. It's always gonna be too much power. It's always going to have a lasting effect on the world. The problem does not disappear.

And yes, I'm well aware of the very real tyrannies and problems I just don't want them to be replaced by an almost fantastical one. It's obscene that that's how these decisions are made but then, reality is obscene.

[Simon_Jester]

Pretty sure he is saying he has already made the decision. The getting drunk part is to help deal with the emotional fallout of enacting that decision, not the making of the decision itself.

If he's that uncertain about it, maybe he should hand off the button to someone else and let them decide? If it's this self-evident that he's right, and he's this ambiguous about actually doing the dirty work to act on his own convictions, maybe he needs to talk to somebody before making the decision.

Maybe he fixes starving kids in Africa with that time (hey, wouldn't that be great), maybe he doesn't, but either way that's all he gets because, for better or worse, I am fucking terrified of him enough to murder his omnipotent ass.

You seem to be admitting, at least implicitly, that this is not a logical decision, but that you would make it anyway.

Is that the case?

It is a perfectly logical decision if he believes with a great degree of certainty that at some point John Smith will become an oppressor rather than a benevolent dictator. And by then there will be no stopping him. To him the risk outweighs the reward. Sure there will still be the world's problems if he is killed, but those problems can be solved, through great effort or otherwise, by regular people. But an invulnerable, all powerful oppressor is a problem that can't be solved.[/quote]What I mean is that the terms Raw Shark uses ("terrified," "I would get drunk first") do not fill me with confidence in how much faith he has in his own logic.

Maybe this is exactly the sort of tyrant that could work, who knows? Or maybe it wouldn't actually lead to tyranny after all.

Maybe, maybe not. But you can't know until you're in his power. At which point it's too late to do anything about it one way or another. Which is why you try to never let it get that far.

True. He's a person, therefore he's guilty by default, therefore let us kill him.

This really does echo of Harrison Bergeron. What would you do if you found out there were going to be ten superpowered beings emerging next year, instead of just one? What about fifty? A thousand? A million?

At what point would quietly killing them off stop being the appropriate response?

I'm not ignoring the potential for good. I have simply weighed it against the potential for evil and picked another path.

Can you show your derivation?

I mean, it seems like you're saying "With probability X, he might do [finite amount of good]. With probability (1-X), he might do [infinite amount of evil]. Therefore he's a net bad."

When did you derive that "bad outcome is infinity evil, good outcome is finite good" result? It's very much central to your reasoning that you are so firmly convinced of this premise. I don't share that firmness. Can you explain?

Do you think it's normal for us to say "we should kill people UNLESS we are absolutely certain that their existence is a net positive?"

Your life must be terribly exciting if this is anywhere near a "normal" scenario.

OK. So your argument is that this is not a valid philosophical principle to use in general; it's only this guy who should be killed because we're not sure we'll be better off for having him around. Because he's too powerful, so if we can't be sure he's a good thing he should be preemptively eliminated.

Is that right?

Given how real celebrities are, if John Smith really is super-intelligent he won't have much of a problem. Even people whose contributions to the world are limited to showing up in movies or football games are usually wildly popular, and become disliked only if they turn out to be raging assholes or drug addicts or cheating on their spouses.

How much more popular would someone be who did real good things every day, and who could credibly claim godlike power if they wanted to?

Which is why, besides some bleating about the unfairness of capitalism, no one expects much from them. Depending on how effective a hero he is he will certainly be loved. Universally? Nope. The pressure on him is not even comparable.[/quote]I don't think he'll be uniformly loved. I do think that he'll get enough affection to satisfy the desires of almost any near-human psychology.

]Bullshit? Sorry, your argument requires that I buy into your notions. Without that, it's just the optimistic path dressed up.

...What notions? That human beings don't automatically default to evil?

Not that. The whole list and the attempt at some rigorous formulation of human behavior that would have the metahuman acting exactly in a way that would validate his argument.[/quote]I don't expect that a superman would do no harm. But on balance, if all the evidence suggests he's no worse than average, and he's been given these immense abilities... I would expect net good and act on that basis.

What exactly makes it so hard for you to believe that a person with nothing to fear would do good, or at least net good? Why did you even start this thread if you are that certain you already know the answer? It's nuts.

I honestly wasn't sure when I made the thread,like I said, I've been on the other side. Or perhaps I simply was and didn't know it? And anyway, it's not like one has to be on the fence to want to see opposing viewpoints no?

I'm sorry; perhaps I was not privy to the process by which you went from being uncertain to being profoundly certain.

Could you enlighten me? I'm sure there's more to it than what you've said so far; see above.

[Gaidin]

Pretty sure he is saying he has already made the decision. The getting drunk part is to help deal with the emotional fallout of enacting that decision, not the making of the decision itself.

If he's that uncertain about it, maybe he should hand off the button to someone else and let them decide? If it's this self-evident that he's right, and he's this ambiguous about actually doing the dirty work to act on his own convictions, maybe he needs to talk to somebody before making the decision.

Thirty days is such a faulty premise in the first place given how often anybody with even a stable personality can change. If there's no way we can hold this guy back once he decides he's going to do what he wants and we don't like what he decides, why should we give him the chance to even get near making that decision? And what's wrong with such a decision causing emotional fallout? I'd be more worried if it didn't. It's a hard choice to make. After thirty days there's no check and balance on Smith, period full stop, like there is on every other person or society on this planet whatever price it may cost to run that check and balance. The world is his. Start praying.

[Simon_Jester]

Thirty days is such a faulty premise in the first place given how often anybody with even a stable personality can change. If there's no way we can hold this guy back once he decides he's going to do what he wants and we don't like what he decides, why should we give him the chance to even get near making that decision?

Because the alternative is to murder a person who has shown no sign of wanting anything but good, and given no evidence that he will do anything but good, because of some vague ramblings about the corruptibility of human nature?

Also, as fgalkin noted, this decision may have unforeseen consequences in the future. God help us all if a second John Smith shows up after you murdered the first, because that guy will have no reason to feel anything but fear and hatred for humanity.

And what's wrong with such a decision causing emotional fallout? I'd be more worried if it didn't. It's a hard choice to make.

If the emotional fallout is such that a person feels compelled to get blind, stinking drunk before committing the act of killing someone... that someone should hand over the weapon to someone who can do it sober. It's that simple in my opinion; if you can make a philosophical decision that someone ought to die on general principles, you can damn well carry it out yourself, without trying to cushion yourself from the reality of what you are doing.

Again, you're deciding to kill someone purely because your philosophy tells you they should be dead. Not because you're defending yourself, not because you're in direct danger, just because you made a cold-blooded decision that they need to die. If you can make that decision, and expect the world to live with the consequences, the least you can do is commit the act while in a rational, self-aware state.
_______________________

I have no respect for a person who dreams of being the Hard Man Making Tough Choice, but then being unable to implement their own Hard Man Tough Choice decision because the bizarre artificial Tough Choice in their mind is in fact absurd and brutal.*

Anyone who can "decide" to kill John Smith while sober, but can't bring themselves to do it sober, should not be participating in an act of premeditated murder. Hand the weapon off to someone who can. Or at least who isn't such a sad sack, and can make a decision one way or the other and stick to it.

*Although I do have respect for someone having enough self-awareness to recognize that they'd do so; that's a good sign- but it's a sign that the person who's saying this probably wouldn't be a good choice for "guy to make life or death decisions for millions of people."

[Gaidin]

And why should we allow a power with no checks and balances on it when we can do something about it?

[Batman]

That'd be the part where we'd be killing a so far innocent person for something they might do in the future. I have already admitted I'd do it because I agree the risk is too great bit that doesn't change the fact that it makes us murderers.

[Grumman]

And why should we allow a power with no checks and balances on it when we can do something about it?

Because your "do something about it" means murdering an innocent man. And again, political power is not merely "allowed", it is given and/or stolen. It rightly belongs to the people, not the politician, and so it is only right that its caretaker be under extraordinary restrictions to ensure they do not abuse this extraordinary responsibility. It is not comparable to traits like strength or intelligence.

[Batman]

I don't think anybody is debating (I know I am not) that we are murdering an innocent man. That's probably the point where people turning to drink comes into play, though I agree with S_J that is something that should only happen AFTER the fact. Dive into the bottle all you want once the deed is done, but if you elect to sentence a man to death for crimes he might someday commit you better be stone cold sober when you do it.

The position of the murdering front (look, I needed a label, everybody feel free to complain or clarify as to their personal position) is that yes, we're killing on innocent man, and we're not proud of it, but if we DON'T after the button expires, we're shit outta luck because the guy can do anything he pleases. He may turn out to be another Clark, he may turn out to be another Darkseid, he may turn out to be another Kermit the Frog (which chances are would be weird as hell) but the point is there's jack all we could do about it.

Another Kryptonian superpowered being may show up down the line or they may not. A comet may one day head for Earth that only John Smith could stop, or it may not. What we know is there's this superpowered guy, and once the button is gone, he's invincible.
Give me an island full of Amazons, a kryptonite ring, the Corps, some way to keep the guy in check, yeah, I'll chance it. With him being the only super? Too big a risk.

[Gaidin]

And why should we allow a power with no checks and balances on it when we can do something about it?

Because your "do something about it" means murdering an innocent man. And again, political power is not merely "allowed", it is given and/or stolen. It rightly belongs to the people, not the politician, and so it is only right that its caretaker be under extraordinary restrictions to ensure they do not abuse this extraordinary responsibility. It is not comparable to traits like strength or intelligence.

I'm pretty indifferent to the legal ramifications and I'm the only one that knows what happened if I push the button if I understand the scenario correctly. Logically I have every reason to press the button before time runs out, and how I deal with the ethical ramifications is pretty much none of anybody else's business in the first place.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, in case you did not notice, that is an ethical argument. To wit, murdering an innocent man is wrong, murdering people on suspicion of what they one day might do is wrong, and the analogy to political power is not exact.

I don't think anybody is debating (I know I am not) that we are murdering an innocent man. That's probably the point where people turning to drink comes into play, though I agree with S_J that is something that should only happen AFTER the fact. Dive into the bottle all you want once the deed is done, but if you elect to sentence a man to death for crimes he might someday commit you better be stone cold sober when you do it.

Well, I also don't think we should do it. If it were certain or near-certain that he would become a tyrant, I would say go for it. But it is not near-certain, and I can't shake the feeling that we're seeing a very powerful reaction that's coming from kneejerk emotions of fear and suspicion.

Another Kryptonian superpowered being may show up down the line or they may not. A comet may one day head for Earth that only John Smith could stop, or it may not. What we know is there's this superpowered guy, and once the button is gone, he's invincible.
Give me an island full of Amazons, a kryptonite ring, the Corps, some way to keep the guy in check, yeah, I'll chance it. With him being the only super? Too big a risk.

We're boned if that way to keep him in check shows up later and he was killed, though- because then from their point of view Super-Jesus was killed for being super.

[Gaidin]

We're boned if that way to keep him in check shows up later and he was killed, though- because then from their point of view Super-Jesus was killed for being super.

I guess the OP wants to give me the power to see the future too? Otherwise I'm not going to let that bother me.

[Raw Shark]

I don't think anybody is debating (I know I am not) that we are murdering an innocent man. That's probably the point where people turning to drink comes into play, though I agree with S_J that is something that should only happen AFTER the fact. Dive into the bottle all you want once the deed is done, but if you elect to sentence a man to death for crimes he might someday commit you better be stone cold sober when you do it.

Just so: Decision made sober; pull the trigger drunk because I'm weak.

The position of the murdering front (look, I needed a label, everybody feel free to complain or clarify as to their personal position) is that yes, we're killing on innocent man, and we're not proud of it, but if we DON'T after the button expires, we're shit outta luck because the guy can do anything he pleases. He may turn out to be another Clark, he may turn out to be another Darkseid, he may turn out to be another Kermit the Frog (which chances are would be weird as hell) but the point is there's jack all we could do about it.

I'm comfortable using that label. This faction decided to murder the guy.

[Scrib]

I mean, it seems like you're saying "With probability X, he might do [finite amount of good]. With probability (1-X), he might do [infinite amount of evil]. Therefore he's a net bad."

When did you derive that "bad outcome is infinity evil, good outcome is finite good" result? It's very much central to your reasoning that you are so firmly convinced of this premise. I don't share that firmness. Can you explain?

I'm saying that we cannot prove that he is good, or is going to stay good (and his lack of accountability doesn't help this)and we have no counter to him if he was to turn bad so the potential for harm is enormous. Nor do I know enough about his psychology to make a judgement in his favor, and there's a reason people have all that social pressure on them. So the path for me is simply to get rid of him before we are completely at his mercy.

I'm not sure how much deeper I can/need to go into that tbh

OK. So your argument is that this is not a valid philosophical principle to use in general; it's only this guy who should be killed because we're not sure we'll be better off for having him around. Because he's too powerful, so if we can't be sure he's a good thing he should be preemptively eliminated.

Is that right?

It's not a generally applicable principle because the situation has never been encountered before and is unique.

Which is why, besides some bleating about the unfairness of capitalism, no one expects much from them. Depending on how effective a hero he is he will certainly be loved. Universally? Nope. The pressure on him is not even comparable.

I don't think he'll be uniformly loved. I do think that he'll get enough affection to satisfy the desires of almost any near-human psychology.

You forgot "healthy" and "reasonable". Of course, depending on how truthful he's being at his first meeting how near-human his psychology is can also be doubted.

Not that. The whole list and the attempt at some rigorous formulation of human behavior that would have the metahuman acting exactly in a way that would validate his argument.

I don't expect that a superman would do no harm. But on balance, if all the evidence suggests he's no worse than average, and he's been given these immense abilities... I would expect net good and act on that basis.

Average by whose standards? And how are you judging that? A single speech to the UN followed by milquetoast attempts at reaching out? The total "net good" he would do depends on his position which I can't pin down with any certainty. Nor can I say how likely it is compared to the scenarios with "net bad".

[TheHammer]

Pretty sure he is saying he has already made the decision. The getting drunk part is to help deal with the emotional fallout of enacting that decision, not the making of the decision itself.

If he's that uncertain about it, maybe he should hand off the button to someone else and let them decide? If it's this self-evident that he's right, and he's this ambiguous about actually doing the dirty work to act on his own convictions, maybe he needs to talk to somebody before making the decision.

He believes that his actions are right and neccessary, but that does not detract from the fact that they are distatesful. It is a ready acknowledgement that the killing of this man might be evil, but in his view it is the lesser of two evils given the great potential for harm.

You seem to be admitting, at least implicitly, that this is not a logical decision, but that you would make it anyway.

Is that the case?

It is a perfectly logical decision if he believes with a great degree of certainty that at some point John Smith will become an oppressor rather than a benevolent dictator. And by then there will be no stopping him. To him the risk outweighs the reward. Sure there will still be the world's problems if he is killed, but those problems can be solved, through great effort or otherwise, by regular people. But an invulnerable, all powerful oppressor is a problem that can't be solved.

What I mean is that the terms Raw Shark uses ("terrified," "I would get drunk first") do not fill me with confidence in how much faith he has in his own logic.

The potential for abuse would be terrifying. History has not shown most individuals to have restraint to not abuse power once they are granted it. The saying "power corrupts" is a saying for a reason. While John smith may be an exception to that rule, the fact that he would be need to be an exception is enough to consider the risk too great.

Certainly you acknowledge that there is a greater than 0% chance he would turn out to be evil. For the sake of argument, would you grant that it there is at least a 1% chance that he might become a tyrant? Let's say John smith isn't a man, but a machine with equivalent powers. There is a 99% chance that this machine will solve everyone's problems and create a eutopia. And a 1% chance it will enslave mankind, or destroy the planet. And you've got the same choice here, you have 3 weeks to decide whether to destory this machine or let it attain ominpotency. Do you have such moral qualms then about destroying it?

[Batman]

There's no e in Utopia and most people likely would consider the destruction of a mere machine considerably less objectionable than the murder of a sentient being.
That being said, the machine angle, by way of the Asimov robots, points me to a way Super John Smith could end up being a serious menace to society while doing his level best trying to make things right. For those of us who know the Timmverse, the keyword is 'Justice Lords', and I DO dimly seem to remember Clark trying that approach a few times in the comics and...well the DCU still exists so the results can't have been too cataclysmic but generally that doesn't seem to have worked out so well.

[Scrib]

There's no e in Utopia and most people likely would consider the destruction of a mere machine considerably less objectionable than the murder of a sentient being.
That being said, the machine angle, by way of the Asimov robots, points me to a way Super John Smith could end up being a serious menace to society while doing his level best trying to make things right. For those of us who know the Timmverse, the keyword is 'Justice Lords', and I DO dimly seem to remember Clark trying that approach a few times in the comics and...well the DCU still exists so the results can't have been too cataclysmic but generally that doesn't seem to have worked out so well.

Considering that the point is likely to validate Superman's current "punch bad things in the face and go to sleep" strategy this is not a surprise at all.

But snide comments aside wouldn't a robot as advanced as Super John Smith be sentient and sapient?

[Justice]

John Smith got married and legally adopted a child. I think it's obvious that he's both.

[Batman]

Given that I have ignored the New 52 in the hopes that it will eventually go away I can't rightfully comment on what Clark has recently been doing.
And I think you underestimate the serious emotional disconnect between robot/droid and biological being. You kill me, I'm dead. Yeah, okay, so I'll be back a year later at the latest, but for that year, I'm dead unless you get one of the Arcana guys to drag me out of whatever iteration of the afterlife they decided to park me in this time.
A robot? You have the means to rebuild the hardware, you have the latest backup of the software, it's essentially 'I knew we shouldn't have skipped the weekly backup.'