*grin* This is fun.
I agree that binary oppositions are dangerous. But I also think that it is impossible to have wholly objective standards of right and wrong. I think it's always situational.
Take, for instance, Ursula K. Le Guin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." In this story, Omelas is a utopia. However, for this utopia to exist, there must be one child who has to live in absolute misery--covered in his/her own filth and living the worst sort of life imaginable. Whenever someone comes of age, this truth is revealed to him/her. Then, this person has to make a choice: stay in this utopia where only one person suffers...or walk away into the unknown. Logically--dare I say "objectively"?--this is okay. One person suffers so that everyone else can live amazing lives. But this is not clean-cut morality--even if someone makes the choice whether to stay or leave, there are probably still doubts remaining. Similarly, one person may say, "I would never kill anyone," only to be willing to shoot one person to save millions.
I think part of being a superhero is often having standards--but also facing those tough choices where no amount of objectivity will make said superhero feel better about a certain choice. A superhero shouldn't kill anyone--but what if it's the only way to save everyone?
All in all, Clarkent is risking not only his life but his adoptive parents' lives. And he's doing this not because he "feels" that Alexander's actions are wrong, but because he knows that they're wrong because there's an objective standard by which all actions are judged.
Do you mean Clarkent's individual objective standard, or are you talking in a more general sense (the church, chivalry, etc.)? And while he may have a standard, I really would hate to say that such a standard is objective. An objective standard should be able to apply to everyone situation, shouldn't it? But I think situations are important--thereby making it seem a little more subjective. For instance, maybe Clarkent believes everyone should be happy (this wouldn't necessarily be a standard that everyone disagrees with). Maybe he also believes that there is an important division between classes--after all, should Geralph be able to have as much influence on the kingdom as the monarch? But these two standards (and it may be that I'm applying the word "standard" wrong)--support happiness, support the monarchy--come into conflict through his interest in being with a princess. Can objective standards come into conflict like that? Or is it just a matter of prioritizing standards? And if it's about prioritizing standards, does that lose some objectivity?
You're right, of course, about Alexander's attempts to appear benevolent being important to keeping down revolt. However, while even honest Nobles may not be eager to prop up a corrupt monarch, there's again a conflict of interest. I've tried to avoid mentioning church stuff in this story, but it is a medieval setting. During medieval times, the monarch was viewed to be God-appointed. If it was a bad monarch, well, maybe God was punishing the people. But the standard was that the monarch should not be killed since he or she was appointed by God--regardless of how good a ruler that monarch made. Assassination plots were made in spite of this standard. A good ruler was wanted--but what the people wanted had nothing to do with what was deemed "right." Individually, people had different standards from this state- and church-supported one.
"Trust your feelings, Luke!" is lousy advice. Trust the objective standard of right and wrong, Clarkent. You won't go wrong if you're following the right.
But can standards be wholly objective? For the sake of the galaxy, Luke Skywalker should have been willing to kill his own father--but those pesky feelings ("I like family," "Murder is wrong") got in the way...and led to a happy(ish) ending anyway. And it wasn't that he hadn't killed before--after all, he destroyed a space station with countless people on it (possibly even "innocent" prisoners).