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.
There are plenty of great movies out there that don't take sides on deep issues like how we must handle the consolidation of power given its corrosive nature. One such movie is Rocky. Another is The Little Mermaid. While those movies have some differences, they do have one big thing in common: They don't spend their first 30 minutes underlining, bolding, and italicizing the question "Can you be moral and all-powerful?" only to end with, "Well, we sure killed that monster that came from out of nowhere. Please enjoy all eight of our spinoffs/sequels."