Ethical Dilemma : Should Batman kill the Joker?

- relevant to young, curious and energetic people
- relevant to P1 (PA) and P7 (AAA)
- don’t forget : rate this article by ticking the boxes below.
- Your comments are fun and insightful

























From Left to right:
Pic 01: Hey pal, time to change to anti-dandruff shampoo
Pic 02: Joker on wickedness, "I am ahead of the curve."
Pic 03: All dressed up for F8 class. A Battle, man.



Visit "Batman Dark Knight" video

Studies can be fun. In ACCA, don’t hesitate to apply to fiction or non-fiction scenarios. Even famed comic heroes have something to teach us. Now, I am not saying this is a green card to go cinemas at the expense of your responsibility to spend hours on end poring over books, lecture notes and question bank.

Just interesting to note that P1 appeals to our inbuilt morality, the need to do the acceptable thing. Here is one example – Batman.

For years, fans of the Batman comics have puzzled over a mystery at the heart of the series: why doesn't Batman just kill his arch-nemesis, the murderous Joker?

The two have engaged in a prolonged game of cat-and-mouse. The Joker commits a crime, Batman catches him, the Joker is locked up, and then invariably escapes.

Wouldn't all this be much simpler if Batman just killed the Joker? What's stopping him?


Should Batman kill the Joker?
Batman should kill the Joker.

How many of us would agree with that? Quite a few, we'd wager. Even Heath Ledger's Joker in "The Dark Knight" marvels at Batman's refusal to kill him. After all, the Joker is a murderous psychopath, and Batman could save countless innocent lives by ending his miserable existence once and for all.

Of course, there are plenty of masked loonies ready to take the Joker's place, but none of them has ever shown the same twisted devotion to chaos and tragedy as the Clown Prince of Crime.

But if we say that Batman should kill the Joker, doesn't that imply that we should torture terrorism suspects if there's a chance of getting information that could save innocent lives? Of course, terrorism is all too present in the real world, and Batman only exists in the comics and movies. So maybe we're just too detached from the Dark Knight and the problems of Gotham City, so we can say "go ahead, kill him." But, if anything, that detachment implies that there's more at stake in the real world - so why aren't we tougher on actual terrorists than we are on the make-believe Joker?

Pop culture, such as the Batman comics and movies, provides an opportunity to think philosophically about issues and topics that parallel the real world. For instance, thinking about why Batman has never killed the Joker may help us reflect on our issues with terrorism and torture, specifically their ethics.

Three major schools of ethics provide some perspective on Batman's quandary.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, based on the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, would probably endorse killing the Joker, based on comparing the many lives saved against the one life lost.

Deontology
Deontology, stemming largely from the writings of Immanuel Kant, would focus on the act of murder itself, rather than the consequences. Kant's position would be more ambiguous than the utilitarian's: While it may be preferable for the Joker to be dead, it may not be morally right for any person (such as Batman) to kill him. If the Joker is to be punished, it should be through official procedures, not vigilante justice. More generally, while the Joker is evil, he is still a human being, and is thus deserving of at least a minimal level of respect and humanity.

Virtue ethics
Finally, virtue ethics, dating back to the ancient Greeks (such as Aristotle), would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person that takes his enemies' lives? If he killed the Joker, would he be able to stop there, or would every two-bit thug get the same treatment?

Taking these three ethical perspectives together, we see that while there are good reasons to kill the Joker, in terms of innocent lives saved, there are also good reasons not to kill him, based on what killing him would mean about Batman and his motives, mission and character.

The same arguments apply to the debate over torture: While there are good reasons to do it, based on the positive consequences that may come from it, there are also good reasons not to, especially those based on America's national character. Many Americans who oppose torture explain their position by saying, "It's not who we are," or "We don't want to turn into them." Batman often says the same thing when asked why he hasn't killed the Joker: "I don't want to become that which I hate."

Ethical Dilemma – Spiderman Perspective

- relevant to young, curious and energetic people
- relevant to P1 (PA) and P7 (AAA)
- don’t forget : rate this article by ticking the boxes below.
- Your comments are fun and insightful












Pic 01 Ethical Dilemma: Is Peter Parker morally obliged to be a superhero? (Image courtesy Marvel)

Spiderman, a Marvel Comic hero, is serious business both as box office smashing success and an ethical dilemma. Is it true that great powers come with great responsibility? Initially Peter Parker didn’t think so. Who cares is the attitude? Ethics will have it as “love your neighbour as yourself” and “Do unto others if you want others do unto you”.



"Philosophy starts with Socrates in the streets of Athens taking his message to the people and speaking in their language - agricultural analogies and common mythology." Through the centuries, though, philosophers retreated into academia, creating a convoluted vocabulary that can appear inaccessible to the average first-year university student - those "deontological" ethics for example.

Great power, great responsibility?
Superhero-based thought experiments can help people grapple with ethical dilemmas in an unsentimental fashion.








Pic 02: Great powers come with great responsibility?


Peter Parker's Uncle Ben told him that with great power comes great responsibility, an axiom that thematically recurs through the series (Image courtesy Marvel Entertainment)

Imagine for example, that you are Peter Parker (aka Spider-Man) and you have just discovered that you have superpowers. Do you have a moral obligation to use your new-found powers to help others?

The question to explore consequentialism, an approach to morality which, as the name suggests, judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based solely on its outcomes.

A consequentialist would be likely to argue that Peter Parker has a moral responsibility to be Spider-Man because that decision would bring about the greatest good.

But Peter Parker was also a talented scientist, so a non-consequentialist could argue that fulfilling his scientific vocation could be an equally valid choice for him. Perhaps being Spider-Man is above and beyond the call of duty - the answer is murky.















Pic 03: Consequentialists or Non-consequentialist approach?

The conversation does not end with superheroes, of course. Mr Robichaud of Harvard University encourages students to take the framework they have learned and apply it to decisions in their own personal and professional lives.

But he says it is a neutral way to start talking about ethical issues that people often find provocative or confronting.
"Ethics is one of those hard things to teach because for a lot of people the answers are very personal," Mr Robichaud told the BBC. "If you make it about artificial examples at first, then it allows people to think a little bit more safely and clearly about ethical issues."

Questions:
1) Is Peter Parker obliged to be a superhero?
2) Can he use the ill-gotten gains from villains to support his heroic work? Or he must work part time in pizza delivery?

Next article, I shall explore another superhero. Serious movie that sends our head spinning.

Source:
Katie Connolly, BBC News, Teaching philosophy with Spider-Man2010 12 August

British Petroleum : UK Governance at Play

- related to "7-11" P1 ACCA students
- please don't forget rate the article in the tick boxes below















Pic 01: Outgoing CEO (Forefront) with Incoming CEO (Background)

Watch the video on "Media Pressure" on BP.

United Kingdom’s strong governance at play with such effectiveness that USA President Obama has turned from anger to emotional appeal that British Petroleum giant oil company should stay and demonstrate repentance by cleaning up Mexico Gulf and contributing to American economy. Note the articles below on:

1. Governance tool: Transparency principle in that BP reveals action to shut the spill soonest within a week
2. Chairman’s tool: Through Nomination committee replaced the ineffective CEO
3. Chairman’s tool: As spokesperson for BP, met and appease USA President
4. Remuneration Committee: Set the severance pay for outgoing CEO
5. Media pressure a form of governance: Attention on the new CEO’s actions. Praises and encouragement for him
6. iNEDS tool: Have a succession plan in place. Deputy CEO considered the best choice for No.1 position.

RESULT: Share prices rebound by 37% since the departure of outgoing CEO. A neat piece of governance work safeguarding BP Shareholders’ interests!

Enjoy the following articles:
Article 01:
President Obama spoke yesterday with the chairman of the board of BP about their change in leadership, but BP CEO Tony Hayward's departure is "immaterial" to the company's obligations to the Gulf Coast in the wake of the oil spill, a White House spokesperson said today.
"The key is that BP can't leave and should not leave the Gulf," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at a briefing. "I think that's the viewpoint of everyone that's involved here, that they have obligations and responsibilities as the responsible party in this instance that have to be met, regardless of who the CEO is or who the chair of the company is."
BP announced Tuesday that embattled CEO Tony Hayward would step down from his position on October 1, and his American deputy, Bob Dudley, would take his job.
When asked by the British press whether his ouster was fair, Hayward replied, "Life's not fair," and said he was forced to leave because he was demonized by the American media. He also said he may be "too busy" to attend American hearings on the oil spill.
"What's not fair is what's happened on the Gulf," Gibbs responded today to the remarks. "What's not fair is that the actions of some have caused the greatest environmental disaster that our country's ever seen."
He added, " don't think that a lot of people in any country are feeling overly sorry for the former CEO of BP."

ARTICLE 02
British oil giant BP announced Tuesday morning that embattled CEO Tony Hayward would step down from his position on October 1, and his American deputy, Bob Dudley, would assume to top job.

In a statement accompanying its earnings update on Tuesday, BP said the decision was made by "mutual agreement."

The company said Dudley would be based in London when he takes up his appointment and will hand over his present duties in the United States to Lamar McKay, the chairman and president of BP America.

The newly named CEO said Tuesday his top priority would be sealing the company's blown oil well for good, and cleaning and restoring the Gulf of Mexico.

Hayward has been slammed by U.S. officials - including President Obama - for his handling of the Gulf oil spill.

Hayward is the bone being thrown to the angry dog of public opinion, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips.

And as sacrificial lambs go, Hayward is an expensive one. Phillips reports the golden handshake from BP will involve a year's salary of $1.6 million, a pension worth roughly another million dollars every year, and BP shares that could be worth many more millions -- if the company's stock price recovers.

BP said Tuesday the company was allocating $32.2 billion to cover the costs of cleaning up after the spill and compensating the thousands of Gulf Coast residents put out of work by the waves of crude oil. The company said it would sell $30 billion worth of assets over 18 months to help foot the bill.

The cost figures were released along with BP's quarterly earnings report -- a record loss of $17 billion for the second quarter.

SOURCES:
Stephanie Condon, 2010, Obama Talks to BP Chairman About Hayward's Ouster,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html?keyword=Tony+Hayward&tag=contentMain;contentBody, July 27

CBS NEWS BUSINESS, 2010,BP Confirms Tony Hayward Out, Bob Dudley In,http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/27/business/main6716254.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody, July 27