Is there any reason why most superhero characters are programmed to fight villains as their primary means of enacting justice,other than that readers and viewers enjoy the fun of action scenes and have morally satisfying motivations?I mean that there should be many super powers or super technologies that can help others through means other than force,do you think that "frequent use of force" is one of the core of superheroes,or it's just based on business considerations or genre habits?

It's partly the arms race of spectacle and partly downstream of the zeitgeist. In the very early days they weren't always fighting "supervillains" as we understand it- they were fighting, like, the mob, or specific gangs of bank robbers, or in actual no frills World War 2, or any number of other things. "Supervillains" were a dual emergent property of A.) individual flamboyant antagonists simply being more fun for the heroes to fight than Blackmailing ring # 456, and B.) the fact that the advent of the Comics Code Authority made depicting most kinds of grounded, gritty or materially motivated crimes- drug crime, sex crimes, war crimes, government corruption, etc.- a non-starter- hence all the wacky themed museum robberies and so on in the fifties. From the 60s onward they did start to pivot back towards heroes fighting supervillains who were essentially caricatures of whatever the current real-life cultural boogeyman was- communist agent supervillains, then drug-dealer supervillains, slum-lord supervillains, cartel-boss supervillains, Islamic Terrorist supervillains, Satanist supervillains, Televangelist Supervillains, 90s street-gang supervillains, neo-nazi supervillains, on and on. Basically a scattershot battalion of every cultural archetype that a substantial slice of the audience, right wing or left wing or thoughtless undecided who saw something concerning on the news, would enjoy seeing plastered in the iconography of a "supervillain" so that somebody would finally be able to just punch their lights in. These days you get a lot of CEO supervillains, Military Industrial Complex supervillains, gentrifying developer supervillains, Influencer supervillains. A few years ago Tom King wrote a two-pager that was about Batman beating the living hell out of a wife-beating, otherwise untouchable MMA star in a televised charity cage match. The archetypical cornball supervillain who maps to nothing and no one besides themselves was the product of a brief and contingent moment. Other than that, for good or ill, progressive or reactionary, supervillainy is often how we launder our cultural baggage about who we think currently has it coming.

And, you know, the reason the stories are about this and not fixing the world some other way aren't exactly opaque. You basically got it in one within the body of the ask itself, I don't need to explain it further. Whether any of this is at all productive is basically Baby's First Superhero Deconstruction Premise, and the obvious out-of-universe reason why this is the case means it's very easy for this line to fall flat unless the writer has come up with a very unique spin on it. I personally don't draw a distinction between "the core of superheroes" and "mere business consideration or genre habits-" the core tenets of every genre is informed by what sells, or, in non-commercial spaces, what keeps the audience coming back. That's what Genre is.