Given all these examples of power corrupting people, the existence of an unkillable, super strong man that can shoot lasers out his eyes puts all of humanity in a tough dilemma. They can either 1) leave him alone and dream that he has a super moral compass, crossing our fingers in the hope that no one ever convinces him that the world would be better off without Nebraska, or 2) try to neutralize him by whatever means necessary. Both are pretty bad options. Option 2 puts you in Lex Luthor's camp, which seems neither particularly appealing nor particularly effective. But Option 1 makes you only barely more cavalier about the fate of the human race than people who think, "Let's hope this climate change thing just sorts itself out." Superman knocks a building over every time he glares in its direction. The dude might be trouble at this stage in his career.
What do the writers hold up as an example to be followed? Option 1, supporting the idea that harming an innocent is never OK under any circumstances, or Option 2, saying that sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the super? We'll never know, because they go with Option 3: FORGET WE EVER BROUGHT IT UP. LOOK AT THE BIG NEW BATMOBILE. PLEASE, LOOK AT IT.
"AND PLEASE BUY THE TOY ... This movie cost us, like, so much money, you guys."
Instead of using the theme to motivate a showdown between Batman and Superman, we get a series of misunderstandings and coincidences completely unmotivated by anything. Literally their entire fight could be avoided by Superman saying, "Hey, Lex is playing us against one another!" To be clear, I'm not saying that I want BVS to be Hamlet. I don't. (Hamlet's CGI blows, and there isn't even a chase sequence.) But when the raison d'etre of the whole movie comes untethered from the rest of the film, you have a problem.