I just watched Batman vs. Superman, which surprisingly has a hefty emphasis on moral thoughts.
For those who don't know, Superman, a.k.a. "The Man of Steel", is from another world and has only one weakness: Kryptonite. But at the beginning of this movie, no human possesses any amount of the stuff. So, Superman is basically invincible.
The villain of the movie, Lex Luther, is determined to get his hands on some kryptonite in order to kill Superman. Not only that, but he also wants to show the world how "power cannot be all good, and good cannot be all powerful". He tries to manipulate Superman into doing bad deeds.
We seem to perhaps live on a world where it is impossible to be fully good. Even though we can choose the optimific outcome, there is still another choice with potential for good that we had to turn down. Superman can catch someone falling off a skyscraper, or he can catch someone falling off of a cliff, but if they fall at the same time, he must choose one. Although he can move at the speed of light, he can't be everywhere at once (he probably could save everyone who ever needed saving if going at the speed of light but let’s assume he can't on the belief that it would give people terrible whiplash).
Furthermore, could it be true that God, or a God on Earth, cannot be fully good? Does the status of God give one the right to define objective moral truths? If Jesus once again rose from the dead, and switched his mantra from love and acceptance of others to hate and prejudice, would that make those new morals objectively true? Wouldn't that just be some twisted case of individualism?
P.S. If you reply to this post you MUST answer the true philosophical question here: Who is better, Batman or Superman?