You've pinpointed many of the ways this episode was genuinely flawed yet still quite entertaining. I enjoyed it to, even though there were things about it that drove me apesh*t (but that's SV for you; I can't think of too many episodes that are perfect in every respect; there's always at least one thing that makes me, even in episodes I otherwise love, say, "Oh, ffs, SV, learn how to tell a story!"). This is really the only thing with which I take some issue:
But, let’s say, for a moment, that Clark WAS sanctioning murder. Is that… in this case… the wrong solution? AUClark is a monster who kills people without thought. He’s an almost unstoppable monster.
He's not unstoppable, though. OverThere!Lionel demonstrated the ways in which he could be contained. OverThere!Oliver clearly knows how he can be restrained. The moral utilitarian position, which Oliver (and Chloe and Lex) favors, holds (in part) that there are three things that must exist for premeditated murder to be a righteous form of justice: (1) the perpetrator must be dangerous, (2) the perpetrator must be recidivist in that dangerousness, and (3) the perpetrator must be unable to be contained by any appropriate means. The reason OverHere!Oliver's decision to kill Lex was a bad one, even by morally utilitarian standards, is because Lex could be contained by appropriate means. Both he and Lionel spent time in prison, so it was possible to put them there.
Over There, Clark Luthor is (1) and (2), but the episode itself demonstrates that (3) is actually not true of him if you know his weaknesses/the ways different types of kryptonite affect him. He can't be contained by ordinary means, but he can be contained. So, IMO, it's not okay for OverThere!Oliver to kill him outright, or for our Clark to sanction or facilitate that. So, yeah, I think I would have liked it better if the screenplay had had our Clark explicitly express that idea to AU!Oliver. Yeah, the choice still ends up being on AU!Oliver whether he incapacitates Clark Luthor or kills him when he shows back up, but at least Clark Kent would have actually presented to him the idea that he did have options.
ETA: There's one other thing I disagree about and that's Lionel. IMO, OverHere!Lionel didn't try to redeem himself. He switched sides, which is different. And I think that had Lex not killed him, he would have put a lot of effort into trying to isolate Clark so that he could exert more and more influence over him. He was already doing it, or trying to, post-S4 and his time as Jor-El's vessel. His fight with Jonathan in Reckoning was premised, in part, on Jonathan chafing at the idea of Lionel having any kind of influence on Clark. Once Jonathan died during that fight, Lionel proceeded to systematically split Clark from his other sources of emotional support. He championed Martha taking a job that got her out of Smallville. He blackmailed Lana into marrying Lex -- thus cleaving her from Clark -- at almost exactly the same moment Lana decided to reaffirm her love for Clark. He put Clark in a kryptonite cage so Patricia Swann couldn't have any access to him. And he did all of that after serving as Jor-El's vessel, which was allegedly the thing that marked the start of his 'redemption'.
The only real difference between the two Lionels is that OverThere!Lionel didn't have to deal with the senior Kents running interference for 18+ years before he ever had a real opportunity to pull Clark into his sphere of influence. But OverHere!Lionel showed the same desire to control and contain Clark as his AU counterpart and if Lex hadn't killed him, he would have continued that insidious encroachment into Clark's life.
OverThere!Lionel is more monstrous than original recipe Lionel, but original recipe Lionel was monstrous in his own right and would have, IMO, wreaked his own brand of havoc on Clark if his capacity for manipulation hadn't been stunted but Lex's decision to commit patricide.
no subject
But, let’s say, for a moment, that Clark WAS sanctioning murder. Is that… in this case… the wrong solution? AUClark is a monster who kills people without thought. He’s an almost unstoppable monster.
He's not unstoppable, though. OverThere!Lionel demonstrated the ways in which he could be contained. OverThere!Oliver clearly knows how he can be restrained. The moral utilitarian position, which Oliver (and Chloe and Lex) favors, holds (in part) that there are three things that must exist for premeditated murder to be a righteous form of justice: (1) the perpetrator must be dangerous, (2) the perpetrator must be recidivist in that dangerousness, and (3) the perpetrator must be unable to be contained by any appropriate means. The reason OverHere!Oliver's decision to kill Lex was a bad one, even by morally utilitarian standards, is because Lex could be contained by appropriate means. Both he and Lionel spent time in prison, so it was possible to put them there.
Over There, Clark Luthor is (1) and (2), but the episode itself demonstrates that (3) is actually not true of him if you know his weaknesses/the ways different types of kryptonite affect him. He can't be contained by ordinary means, but he can be contained. So, IMO, it's not okay for OverThere!Oliver to kill him outright, or for our Clark to sanction or facilitate that. So, yeah, I think I would have liked it better if the screenplay had had our Clark explicitly express that idea to AU!Oliver. Yeah, the choice still ends up being on AU!Oliver whether he incapacitates Clark Luthor or kills him when he shows back up, but at least Clark Kent would have actually presented to him the idea that he did have options.
ETA: There's one other thing I disagree about and that's Lionel. IMO, OverHere!Lionel didn't try to redeem himself. He switched sides, which is different. And I think that had Lex not killed him, he would have put a lot of effort into trying to isolate Clark so that he could exert more and more influence over him. He was already doing it, or trying to, post-S4 and his time as Jor-El's vessel. His fight with Jonathan in Reckoning was premised, in part, on Jonathan chafing at the idea of Lionel having any kind of influence on Clark. Once Jonathan died during that fight, Lionel proceeded to systematically split Clark from his other sources of emotional support. He championed Martha taking a job that got her out of Smallville. He blackmailed Lana into marrying Lex -- thus cleaving her from Clark -- at almost exactly the same moment Lana decided to reaffirm her love for Clark. He put Clark in a kryptonite cage so Patricia Swann couldn't have any access to him. And he did all of that after serving as Jor-El's vessel, which was allegedly the thing that marked the start of his 'redemption'.
The only real difference between the two Lionels is that OverThere!Lionel didn't have to deal with the senior Kents running interference for 18+ years before he ever had a real opportunity to pull Clark into his sphere of influence. But OverHere!Lionel showed the same desire to control and contain Clark as his AU counterpart and if Lex hadn't killed him, he would have continued that insidious encroachment into Clark's life.
OverThere!Lionel is more monstrous than original recipe Lionel, but original recipe Lionel was monstrous in his own right and would have, IMO, wreaked his own brand of havoc on Clark if his capacity for manipulation hadn't been stunted but Lex's decision to commit patricide.