Movies

That's two different things though. One is looking at the writing as is (Clark is in this situation, what does he do?) the other is looking at the way the writer did this (Why did the writer put these characters in these situations)? When people like me, defend Clark's choice to kill we aren't talking about what the writer should have done, we're looking at what has happened in the story and in the character up to that point. You and other people who have an issue with that scene aren't talking about the character, you're talking about what the writer should have done.



There is no moral dilemma in that scene, because Clark has no established "no kill rule".



So you acknowledge that this argument is a strawman? You are right, nowhere in the movie does it ever say this Clark Kent won't kill people. So complaining about this Clark Kent breaking a moral code he has never mentioned is absurd.



You mean aside from confronting the World Engine and nearly dying to prevent the death of the very society that views him with distrust and suspicion?

Also, I think here you are comparing this Clark Kent to several other iterations of Superman. This Clark doesn't know how to fight, whereas all his opponents are trained fighters. Throughout most of the fight he's barely holding his own. Even if he wanted to prevent mass destruction and death, which I'm sure he does, there's really nothing he could do to prevent that when he's being beaten to shit by Faora, Namek and Zod.



Except it's not a fundamental aspect of his character. This Clark has never, even once, mentioned anything about "no killing". Neither has any of the other Superman. He is reluctant to, sure. But comic Superman has shown that he will kill people if there is absolutely no other choice - hell, was going to kill one of his friends while she was possessed by an alien.



Which would have been impossible at that point, because there is no way to restrain Zod. And, if your retort to this is "Well the writer should have made another way to solve the issue", then we are no longer discussing the actual movie as it is, rather a hypothetical version of the movie.



A principle that he never held.

What is happening in the kill scene isn't about Clark betraying some moral principle that has never been hinted at in the movie and only comes from the minds of fans of the comic randomly assigning to him (despite all evidence to the contrary), but Clark sticking to his moral code despite the fact that it has now alienated him from both Earth and Krypton. That struggle is prevalent in the entire movie, but there are several key moments that bring it up - one of them being the nightmare vision Clark has while aboard the Kryptonian scout ship where Zod makes his demand to hand over the Codex to build a new Krypton on the grave of Earth. There, Clark claims that "I can't be a part of this" and Zod's response is "Then what can you be a part of?" Clark wants to fit into Earth, but at this point they view him with suspicion and distrust - as an alien. When Krypton appears, Clark finds it morally reprehensible. Krypton is as alien to him as it is to humans. When Zod proclaims that "either you die, or I do" and that he'll "never" stop trying to destroy Earth, Clark destroys the only living link to his homeworld. Whereas Clark previously felt alienated by things outside of his control (his Kryptonian biology), here he makes himself an alien by his own hand.