All the scenarios presented so far posit the poster as the only person in the world with super-powers. The circumstances that allow for a Thing also allow for a Hulk, a Thor and a Sasquatch.
In our world, Lance Armstrong and Shaquille O’Neal have physical advantages that no amount of training would ever give, say, me. There’s no such thing as a level playing field.
Yeah, suuure he didn’t peek. He just realized that they’d figure it out sooner or later . . . 
I believed him. Data could also cheat. His hands are superhumanly fast, and capable of extremely delicate and intricate movements. Come to think of it, in the loop episode (the one with Frasier Crane at the end), Data subconsciously does a false shuffle. He stacks the deck and nobody notices until he deals. Data does not cheat because he is trying to learn those aspects of poker which cannot be taught by books. However, when he’s stranded in the old west in Time’s Arrow part 2, he cheats like wild because he needs the money.
How about looking at it from the other end; instead of a useful, productive power, what about a useless or unhelpful one?
Say Brickerman’s powers are that he can change his eye, hair, and skin colours. Not immediately helpful - he couldn’t use those powers to aid people. However, he could sell his body out as advertisements, like a walking TV screen. He could simply use his powers to “display” the ad on his body. He could make money from that endorsement. The only ethical issue here is whether he would be supporting ethical companies, but that isn’t an issue arising from his powers, but one that all famous people must take into account.
Or an unhelpful power - let’s say Brickerman’s powers are that he can, by concentrating, cause himself to explode with such force it destroys the entire earth, and that on his death (other than from old age) this is automatically triggered. All BM has to do to be ethical is not use his power. There wouldn’t be a case of hiring himself out to a government or organisation, because they (and he) would be killed too. BM would have to be kept safe from maniacs who might want to kill him, but that is not an ethical issue for him. The only difficulty would be if BM himself became insane, but in that case it can be argued that he is not in his right mind and so his suicide could not be classed as unethical.
A couple of other points: Data can effortlessly keep an absolute “poker face” no matter what, and Geordi can tell whether a human is lying (and thus, presumably, other such emotional reactions) from the IR pattern of their body heat (established in the episode with the planet where they’ve been cloning a few originals, and accumulated copying errors are catching up to them).
“Every time I asked, some clone lied to me.”
“You can tell when people are lying?”
“Doesn’t always work with aliens. But humans, got 'em pegged.”
It doesn’t surprise me that Riker has got all of his tells under such control that even Geordi can’t see them.
Who would have tought this thread would actually be this interesting.
I think the problem is not only ethical but the desire to live a normal life. How could you openly display powers without your life becoming a freaking nightmare?
In the Philip Wylie book “Gladiator” the super powered Hugo Danner plays college football. At first he enjoys the acolades but he soon tires of it because the challenge for him is not to win but to not make winning look to easy. The ease at which he wins or his consitant winning also breeds jealousy and anger among his team mates. One of the themes in the book is that he can’t really be close to anyone because wehn he revealed his powers they always withdrew.
I don’t think there’s any ethical reason to reveal any powers, but I think you’d find it felt unethical to compete in anything where powers made your winning a sure thing.
Now, are there jobs where you could not reveal your powers and still use them ethically? Probably. Mind reading powers would make you a hell of a claims adjuster wouldn’t it. The lawyer angle is good but you would have to be a prosecutor wouldn’t you? But then what if you were asked to prosecute someone you knew was innocent and your boss had this big political agenda to nail somebody?
Of course you would probably make a dam good detective.
In "Gladiator " Hugo worked one summer as a carnival strongman. It wouldn’t be unethical to only reveal a portion of your strength if it was just a show and not a contest.
How about challenge? Isn’t part of the reward of any endevor the challenge? Can I do it? The risk of failure and not knowing the outcome? If you chose things that were profitable but no real challenge you might find it wasn’t emotionally rewarding.
Wasn’t there a guy on TV briefly who could communicate with, fix, and control almost any machine. That would be dam handy, but a lot of temptation. You could open a fixit shop and make a bundle, or repair high tech gadgets.
What jobs would be good for somebody with Magnetos powers? Something that allowed you to make a bundle while not revealing your powers.
The question of responsibility is pretty interesting. Jesus could heal and did quite often but when he was mobbed he sometimes just left rather than stay and heal people.
It’s interesting to note that most of us in modern countries could probably do a lot more to improve our world and help our fellow man than we actually do. Why would someone with powers have much more responsibility? I suppose it would depend on the circumstances of what event presented itself. I don’t think you’d have any obligation to seek out problems to solve or make yourself constantly available to meet others needs. Nobody has to do that. But what if there was a car accident and you could save a life by revealing special abilities? You’d have to do it wouldn’t you. Like the miners trapped in a mine. Wouldn’t there be some moral obligation to do something if you knew you could easily do it with little or no risk to yourself? I think so. Then the can of worms would be open and you’d have no privacy. I really think it’s likely abilities that were too special might be considered a security risk to the nation.
Ever read the short story “Nobody Bothers Gus”? It touches on some of these same questions.
One of the saddest closing lines in sci-fi:
Because nobody can think of a non-selfish reason to use their superpowers.
Regards,
Shodan
Nitpick. Most of the questions in this thread are concerned with possible amoral or immoral actions, not unethical ones. Morals are personal guidelines. Ethics are fixed rules. As Walton Firm points out with his telekinesis-influencing-the-lottery-drawings-example you cannot break a rule if that rule doesn’t even exist and no other rules are reasonably applicable to your situation. What he’s slipperly proposing to do with his hypothetical powers is immoral but not unethical.
Another example. Using tomndebb’s “mindreading attorney” example, while IANAL, I do not believe there are any rules anywhere against one’s being a practicing natural-born mindreading attorney. The American Bar Association, which I believe sets and enforces the ethical rules regarding the practice of law, has not conceived of a natural-born mindreading attorney practicing law within the American justice system and has no provisions, sanctions, guidelines, or special requirements for or against one. Thus if you ARE a natural-born mindreading attorney the rules do not apply to you using your abilities on behalf of your client. If you find your abilities realiable, you may use them ethically without censure. The morality of your actions is another issue: but history shows us that people with an ace up their sleeves who manage to keep it a secret tend to profit from it, so long as their actions weren’t egregiously immoral (say, defending guilty drug dealers and setting them free.) A similar example is attorney Matt Murdock (Daredevil) whose extrasensory powers essentially make him a human lie-detector. He can defend his (innocent) clients using his powers because he has the assurance that he is acting morally to defend innocents in need.
My point. In comics, TV movies and other media, few superheroes operate in accordance with explicitedly stated rules regarding their powers and limits on their usage. If those rules existed, and if were monitored and enforced, then superheroes would have ethical problems if they broke those rules using these powers. But there problems would be nothing like most of the ones described in this thread. For example, in a world where superheroes existed, the Federal Aviation Administration would conceivably have rules about strangely attired people just zooming around unannounced in commercial airspace. If superheroes refused to adhere to those rules, they would be acting unethically, irresponsibly and very likely immorally.
Another nitpick. Until you declare yourself a superhero, put on a superhero costume, act in accordance with known superhero traits and are treated as a superhero, you ain’t a superhero. You’re just some schmoe with powers. I might see how using your powers as a crimefighter may add extra ethical responsibilities; law enforcers have greater latitude using lethal force but have a shitload of ethical considerations, too. Also I don’t necessarily see how stopping you from exercising your powers could possibly be a legal requirement without infringing on your civil rights or how it can be reasonably enforced in private industry.
It depends. Should you save a drowning child because you might get your nice clothes all dirty?
Of course you should. But if you were trying for an analogy between the two cases, this one’s isn’t remotely close. Clothes getting dirty is an ephemeral, minor, and transitory condition. Devoting your entire life to the prospect of saving drowning children means you give up the possibility of nice clothes more or less permanantly.
Nonsense. Spiderman has plenty nice clothes.
And the analougy is scalar. You walking past a drowning child is a situation in which you can save life with minimal effort. With superpowers, you can save lives, again: at comparatively minimal effort.
Look at it another way: if there is something morally laudable about being a hero, how can choosing NOT to be a hero be laudable?
Ahhhh
Magneto’s Auto body shop.
Lowest prices, fastest service.
He’ll clean up.
And you can save a drowning child with minimal effort. That doesn’t morally compel you to spend every waking moment on the beach in case one starts to go under. If someone with powers is in a position to help someone, they should, but this going out on patrols and listening to police scanners is more then you should expect. Not everyone is an EMT or volunteer fire department member, although many or most are capable of it.
Don’t think small. 
Magneto’s Asteroid Mining, Inc
Want a cubic mile of iron, and want it now ?
Call 555-MAGS for all the metal you ever wanted and more.
Overnight delivery, at the big, flat spot of your choice !
good one.
I was thinking of something where someone could make good money but still keep their powers a secret. Asteroid mining might blow the cover. Of course it would probably be nigh impossible to have that kind of power and not flaunt it at some point. I think super business idea deserves a cafe thread. Stop by.
Magneto could keep it secret by simply leaving the word “Asteroid” out of the name of his company. He could just pull the iron out of a nearby mountain.
But I bet he would make more by mining silver, gold and platinum asteroids. Even if his powers don’t work on the gold, he just needs to find asteroids with both gold and iron.
So I was thinking about ethics and morality of superheroes again. (At this time I freely admit a bit of disappointment that no one seems to be paying ANY attention to me or my last post, but hey, this is good stuff.)
It occurred to last night that while superheroes and supervillains do not have a lot of explicit ethical rules regarding their behavior, there are a lot of unwritten, traditional rules that are pretty much expected of everyone with superpowers, and other behaviors that are taboo or verboten. In that thread on superhero traits I linked in my last post, I noted there were seven character traits that top-tier, world class superheroes consistently exhibit and that the best superheroes have at least six of these seven.
I thought that exploring the reverse end of the spectrum of these character traits might reveal some ethical considerations.
Moderate social views. I’d add that most superheroes are also publicly apolitical. The opposite of this is extremism and activism. Interestingly most super-villains are also apolitical, although their beliefs as a group tends towards various kinds of extremism. This suggests that one ethical dilemma for superheroes would be whether to openly endorse a candidate or a cause, or to openly embrace extremist views they may themselves have.
Killing as a last resort, if at all. The opposite of this is disregard for life – human, animal, whatever. A common ethical dilemma facing superheroes whether or not to use lethal force. Superheroes, as a matter of ethical considerations and traditions tend not kill. (Anti-heroes often do.) A possible ethical dilemma may be exploring what “life” means to them: prehaps their sanctity of life only goes so far as sentient, human life, but they may feel justified killing vampires, mutants, animals, aliens or androids with artificial intelligences.
An exploitable weakness, whether physical or moral. The opposite of this are either having no physical or moral weaknesses or possessing so many venal vulnerabilities that you’re an unstable personality despite your power. Considered as an ethical dilemma, this might pose a question of whether or not an invulnerable being with no physical or moral somehow so much more than human they have transcended superhero culture to become a sort of demigod or deity. Alternately, it may pose the problem that despite your powers your weaknesses prove to be too dangerous for you to be an effective hero.
Self-sacrifice. The opposite of this is greed and self-centeredness. I believe this is a key personality trait that determines whether you’re really a superhero or not, as opposed to a paid mercenary. Real superheroes aren’t paid for their services. Real superheroes do not seek material compensation, fame, popularity, sexual and emotional gratification and monetary gain from the service of protecting humanity from criminal behavior, natural disasters, terrorist actions or the ravages of war, disease, death and famine. An obvious dilemma here is whether a superpowered individual should try to live the self-sacrificing life of a hero on behalf of humanity or try, as many people might be tempted to, to simply exploit their abilities for personal gain at the expense of others, either by pursuing celebrity or socioeconomic dominance or some other essentially selfish act.
Great independence. The opposite of this is co-dependency or enabling behavior. While they may join forces or have membership in superhero unions, the vast majority of superheroes are not strictly operatives, agents, officers, or members. Nor are they flunkies, henchmen, dupes, stooges, patsies who just follow orders. Superheroes have a great deal of independence. In fact, superheroes (and villains) tend not to even submit to human authorities even when they have clearly broken the law. Once
Determination. I might add Commitment. The lifestyle of a superhero requires total involvement and persistance. The antithesis of this is apathy, possibly indifference. A superhero would never walk by a person drowning, a burning building, a screaming woman, without stopping to assist. A superhero would never permit just giving up. An ethical dilemma that infrequently gets explored is what happens when a superhero faces burnout?
Competence and reliability. On the other end of the spectrum: incompetence and unreliability. Most superheroes and supervillains have great control over their powers. It is dangerous and unethical to use your powers if you’re incompetent using them or they are unreliable. An ethical dilemma might explore the ramifications of a superpowered person who decides to use their powers to rob a store but ends up accidentally killing several people instead.
These are, again, mostly character traits. But there are a number of ethical considerations regarding other aspects of superheroism: Identity, (Should I make up a new name and costume or can I use the name of this old retired hero?) Speciality, (Should I be a street vigilante or should I concentrate on Alien Invaders?) Group Affiliations, (Should I join the Equalizers even though they’re historically black and made statements that are anti-gay?) Headquarters, (If I have my headquarters in mid-town, would more innocents be hurt due to possible supervillian/terrorist attacks?)
Hey, I’d appreciate a little feedback, yo!
Askia
I think you sorta missed the point of the OP. It’s not about superheros per say.
Read the OP again. Your comments are kinda off subject.
I’m not exploring which choice is the most laudable. Dedicating your life to serving the poor, a la Mother Teresa, is obviously laudable. CHoosing not to devote your life thus is perhaps not laudable – but is it somehow ethically and morally bereft?