Monday, August 16, 2010

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."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

To kill or not to kill (Shakespears adapted)

Marcus

Anonymous said...

Batman wanted to maintain a high level of ethic, that's the reason why he do not wanted to kill joker to settle the problem once and for all.

However, by analyzing the situation even better, every time joker escaped and disturb Gotham City, people would remember who to call. (other form of free publicity)

Kidd said...

It is puzzling why Batman chose not to just let Joker fall to his death and chose not to save him like he did in Batman Begin.

I speculate it's because he didn't have the opportunity to tell Joker:"I won't kill you, but I can don't save you" like in part one.

Which in turn raises another ethical dilemma, if you're in a building and it's on fire, is it okay to not save your boss?

Anonymous said...

you's is Twisted logic! 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."

Killing the Joker does not do that. It does not make Batman the same as the Joker. The same action (killing) has very different moral values depending on the circumstances.
The Joker kills innocent people, whereas killing the Joker is not the same because the Joker is not an innocent person. Killing the Joker does a great service to humanity whereas the Joker's killing of innocent people does a great disservice to humanity.

Anonymous said...

you's is Twisted logic! 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."

Killing the Joker does not do that. It does not make Batman the same as the Joker. The same action (killing) has very different moral values depending on the circumstances.
The Joker kills innocent people, whereas killing the Joker is not the same because the Joker is not an innocent person. Killing the Joker does a great service to humanity whereas the Joker's killing of innocent people does a great disservice to humanity.

URGENT: SBL Exam Guidance for Dec 2018 Exams

EVERY SUCCESS IN YOUR DECEMBER 2018 EXAMS Change is the only constant. Kasturi Core lecturing team has now moved to 2 new locations. ...