If Superman had landed in America in 1800, would he have added "Slave Tracker" to his many jobs?
If Batman was born in 1860, would he have included "Cracking down on illegal gay clubs" in his crime fighting?
Is the morality of a Superhero defined by the time period they exist in?
Yes.
Yes, just like the morality of literally everyone.
No it's determined by the morality of the writer.
Yes if the writer is being realistic or isn't afraid of backlash
>If Batman was born in 1860, would he have included "Cracking down on illegal gay clubs" in his crime fighting?
Obviously, how else would he hide his own blatant homosexuality?
Morals are relative too.
Gotham's in the North/ NorthEast, right? It's probably just as abolitionist as every other state north of virginia at the time. And batman really only goes after violent criminals in the first place, not people running to Canada.
>Is the morality of a Superhero defined by the time period they exist in?
Yes but even for his time Supes could be quite progressive. Golden Age Lois was a fully fleshed out character that got regressed in the Silver Age
I think people need to consider that even then, not everybody shared the same ideals about gay people or slavery. I mean, prejudice against those two were extraordinarily common, but it's not like it was a hivemind. Google people like Magnus Hirschfeld and Conrad Veidt, and you'll see that they had some views that wouldn't be out of place today, but were radical at the time.
To answer OP's question, most likely. Even if there were people who thought differently, superheroes are tethered to the mainstream morality of both the writer and the culture surrounding them. I think there would be a very slim chance of Batman or Superman spouting 21st century ideals in the 19th century.
Well he operates outside the law, so I suppose he's operating on his own morals. That being said he obviously values the law during his current time period, co-operating with people such as Gordon and Barbara.
I think for the most part it would depend on his upbringing and personal opinion as he obviously doesn't consider himself fully bound by the law.
In both cases you mentioned he probably wouldn't bother dealing with it as harshly as he does with violent criminals, though would treat it the same as drugs or smuggling.
As a broader question extended to all superheroes, I think it really depends on the individual. Green Arrow for example, while being in the same position as Bats, has a vastly different opinion on how society should operate and a different modus operandi.
Overall I'd say the same principle is applicable, because most supers operate outside of the law they are mostly determined by their own motives and opinion, ergo some such as Batman would enforce the law because he genuinely believes in the tennets it upholds, while people such as Green Arrow would operate on their independant moral values as they don't believe in all of the tennets of the law.
If it was an elseworld comic. (Not sure if I'm saying that right)
The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case ruled that not only are black not people, but that everyone who sees a runaway slave has a legal duty to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act and return the slave to its rightful owner. Would Batman listen to the Supreme Court?
Smallvilles still in Kansas right? Clark's got his work cut out.
Wouldn't heroes in olden times just be burnt at the stake as witches anyway?
In fact they're more likely to assume that their powers are the work of the devil in the first place and either devote themselves to a life of piety and absolution or embrace their dark master and pursue a life of wicked debauchery.
Batman doesn't listen to the supreme court NOW, why would he back then?
Also I dunno, Supes grew up in Kansas without having a shred of racism in him, so I think it's less environmental for him.
Plus, Supes was punching Nazis before it was cool.
Either way, they're fictional characters, and superheroes are less about representing the laws of the time and more the ideals, but given the character's MOs I'd like to think not.
Wasn't No Man's Land all about him leaving Gotham for a bit to fight Congress?
Racism as we know it becomes a bit complicated when proper aliens get involved.
Batman wouldn't crack down on gays because he only attacks criminals causing physical damage, either to people or property.
Same reason you don't see him tracking down tax evaders and embezzlers
>Green arrow stealing slaves from the rich and giving them to poor sharecroppers.
>Superman taking poor starving black refugees fleeing the ottomans and putting them in safe plantations in Virginia.
Yes.
Today, women can dress in shorts and tank tops and be fine. In the oast, they'd be hanged.
"Justice" is defined by the society. If society deems it necessary to castrate rapists, then you'd better be sure that Batman would start carrying rusty scissors and a blowtorch in his belt