Please read the following article: "Why Doesn't the Batman Just Kill the Joker?" by Jesse Richards. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/why-doesnt-batman-just-ki_b_3686003.html
It brings up a few good points:
1. The Joker will continue to kill (but does Batman murder him for future crimes - could be dangerous - or past crimes? Joker has killed Robin, Commissioner Gordon's wife, and crippled Batgirl, Gordon's stepdaugher).
2. Batman's honor code of not killing is just a way for Batman to feel superior to the men and women of crime whom he is fighting.
3. Is Batman responsible for all of the deaths / mayhem / destruction since Batman first apprehended the Joker? Is that chaos Batman's to own, or should it be the Joker?
Additionally, it seems, on further reflection, that the Joker, especially the way he is portrayed in The Dark Knight, is the ultimate nihilist. Nihilism is an extreme skepticism that doesn't adhere to any moral or religious principles because they believe that life is meaningless. In some ways, nihilism condemns existence itself.
So, questions to answer:
1. In which of the scenarios of the Trolley Problem do you think best applies to this situation w/ the Batman and Joker (assuming it was the Joker who is the trolley)?
2. Should the Batman kill the Joker? Why or why not? And if so, for what crimes - past or to prevent future crimes?
3. Should our superheroes have a no-killing code? Why or why not? Does it just lead to more crime?
4. Is the concept of utilitarianism useful for real life decisions? Why or why not?
5. Is Batman a true Kantian in his refusal to kill the Joker (think Kant's practical postulates)?
Pick 3 of the questions above to answer.
Pick 3 of the questions above to answer.
300 words total for all 3 answers. Due by class on Friday night (11/13) by midnight.
I think the best scenario that parallels this to the trolley problem is not having Joker as the trolly driver, but Batman. Batman is given a choice, switch the tracks and only kill one person, or to not take action and let multiple people die. With this scenario, Batman take a Kantian approach and does nothing because he’s not the one who’s actively killing people, but if he were to switch the tracks and kill the Joker (the one person on the other track), he would also be letting the Joker win, and prove that even the best of us is willing to do such a heinous act. Because of this, Batman must do nothing and let the trolly (which also can be seen as the Joker) kill those people; he can’t do it himself.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a difficult question if Batman should kill the Joker because it asks what’s Batman’s purpose in Gotham. If you think of Batman simply as a crime fight, a person whose job it is to stop crime, then of course he should kill that Joker before he could do anything else horrific to any other innocent person. This was my perception of Batman, and what I think a lot of people see him as at face value, but then there is Batman as a symbol. The Dark Knight means more than just a rich guy who dresses up as a bat and beats up criminals, he’s also a symbol to the people of gotham, someone who gives hope that humanity is good, someone who’s a symbol for justice and order. He’s the hero Gotham deserves AND the one it needs. If he were to kill someone (like he did Harvey Dent in the Dark Knight) then that would prove that even the person with the strictest code can be corrupted, which then makes his entire mission pretty much pointless.
When looking at the question ‘should all superheroes have a no killing code’ I think so. I look at it through a Utilitarian rule method. If superheros can kill people, what is stopping the average citizen. This cycle of killing is exactly what the Joker wants. He wants to prove that everyone’s a monster, and that if just one person, like Batman, can take a life, then so can anyone else. “Madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push”. We would have criminals being extrajudicial killings and then what stops the police from doing this. It begins with the Joker, but Batman must imagine if he kills, then he loses his legitimacy as the protector of Gotham, or even worse, it gives legitimacy to any punk who kills in the name of law and order.
2) Yes, the batman should most definitely kill the joker! In the comics the joker has killed James Gordon’s wife, paralyzed Barbara Gordon, killed a school full of children, sold nuclear weapons to terrorists, ruined christmas (with sniper attacks), tore Robin and Batgirl to pieces, etc… These innocent lives taken and terrible things that the joker has done should not go unpunished. Yes, he goes to jail, but he always escapes and causes more destruction! If batman kills the joker, just imagine how many lives he will save.
ReplyDelete3) Superheroes should not have a non-killing code, and here’s why. For example, let’s think back to batman and the joker. Batman does not want to kill the joker because he does not believe that is the solution he is looking for. Like in the clip in class we watched the other day joker was about to fall to his death off of a very tall building but batman grappled him to safety. Batman did this even though he knew that Joker put bombs on ships full of people. Even after saving Joker, Joker still tried to blow up the ships! Come on… if there is no possible chance of him changing his ways and all he does is kill innocent lives, I think it’s about time for Batman to kill him. Or anyone, if Batman isn’t up for the job!
4) Yes, by refusing to kill the Joker this makes Batman a true Kantian. Kant’s beliefs on the universalizability principle are basically “before I act, what is the general rule that stands behind the action I am considering.” The general rule of killing someone is “don’t do it!” So even though Batman may be saving hundreds or even thousands of lives by killing Joker, it is wrong to kill so he will not do it. Kant also believes in the formula of humanity which, in simple terms, is “treat other people in a way that you would want to be treated.” Since Batman does not want to be killed, he shall not kill, simple. Or is it?
1. I think the situation is most like the one where Batman hast to decide between choosing to kill a random person and five innocent people. I wouldn’t say that it’s like choosing to kill a bad person over five innocent people only because you would only mention the person‘s character if it swayed the decision but it clearly doesn’t in this case because the joker is a terrible person and the Batman still lets him live regardless of what he’s done. But in the situation and in Gotham city, someone has to die. So either Batman allows one person to die or he lets five people die. And I think, though this could be a reach, The joker could be the trolley as well as the person on the tracks. The singular person. Because at the end of the day, Joker's actions have led to him to be in this position therefore I would consider Batman choosing to kill the Joker as something that the joker brought upon himself. But this isn’t only because the joker is it bad person, it’s also because the joker has put himself in the situation purposely. If it were a convict or a murderer that had also just happened to be on the track unintentionally and the decision came down to the moral character of the five people versus the single person that would be different than the joker being the person on the tracks and being the trolley because the joker decided to be on the tracks and Innoway also decided to be the trolley because the joker is responsible for his death and he’s also ultimately responsible for the death of the five people if he’s the trolley. But that still makes Batman an accessory to the murder if he doesn’t switch the trolley to the track with one person.
ReplyDelete2. Yes. The Batman should kill the joker in a realistic situation. Because the joker is the threat and he’s a reoccurring threat. Actually, in a real situation the Batman should lock up the joker and give him a life sentence. I don’t really know the movie franchise or just the series of Batman and the Joker, I’m a marvel kind of person, but from what I have seen he should be in jail. I even considered saying death row but I remember that I am against the death penalty and the death penalty is no different than Batman killing the joker himself. But the Batman should kill the joker because joker is killing a bunch of innocent people. for the sake of the movie, I understand why the joker needs to be kept alive for the sake of Batman‘s character as well as to keep the movie series running. but if I were a citizen of Gotham city I would think that Batman was the worst hero ever. Because he continued to allow citizens and their lives to be at risk and that’s the opposite of what a superhero is supposed to do. He is supposed to protect them it doesn’t matter if he can eventually save them, if the threat is still there then he didn’t entirely do his job.
4. I don’t think so. I think it’s good for decisions that are theoretical and real life decisions that don’t allow others to be biased. When the single person on the tracks was a family member even theoretically I probably would’ve let the five people die. My friend told me that there was no such thing as a real true good deed because anything you did no matter how selfless it would seem you would get something in return. And I told her about this thing that we were talking about in class, the trolley problem, and I told her that choosing to let five people live at the expense of one of your loved ones was a true good deed that did not benefit the person who made the decision. She then told me that they would be benefited, they would be a hero. But in my mind the person would not care if they were a hero because no amount of praise could fill the hole in their heart nor couldn’t make up for what they did because whenever they were alone they would always feel that pain and nothing to change that. So for that reason I don’t think that a utilitarian outlook on real life situations is reali
1. This may not be a direct answer to the question asked but I think the basic trolley problem is the most representative. The reason I don’t think this will answer the question given is because I don't think any scenario makes sense in which the Joker is the trolley. Batman is the trolley. Joker is the one, and the five are the people Joker will kill. In the status quo the five people will die. The trolley is heading to their track, and if nothing changes they will die. This has a clear analogy in the Batman/Joker question. In the status quo Batman doesn't and hasn't killed the Joker, and we know that the Joker will escape and kill more people. Therefore, unless Batman, the trolley, kills the Joker, changes tracks, those people will inevitably die. The only way to solve the issue is to switch tracks and kill the one, joker.
ReplyDelete2. I think the only scenario in which Batman can kill the Joker is if it is given that Joker will escape jail or prison. Batman can't kill Joker for past crimes. There is no justification for that other than retribution which isn’t an ethically valid reason to kill someone. That means the motivation for killing the Joker must be to prevent future crimes, so Batman can only kill the Joker if he is sure that the Joker will kill at least one more person. In the DC universe, we can say that it is a given that Joker will continue escaping and killing because that is a necessary condition for the story to continue. Therefore, Batman should kill the Joker. But this doesn't mean that if this happened in real life Batman should kill the Joker. This is because in real life, Joker's escape is not inevitable. In real life people wouldn't be so consistently incompetent that the Joker would escape every time. That chance that the Joker won’t escape means the batman cannot kill the Joker because he can not be sure that the Joker would kill another. That means Batman's actions wouldn't be ethical under utilitarianism or many ethical frameworks because killing a version of the joker who wouldn't kill again means the death of one more person that would die if Batman didn't kill Joker.
5. I think Batman’s refusal to kill is definitely Kantian. Batman doesn't kill because it is wrong. Kant thinks that killing is bad so you should never do it. I think that Batman would agree with that. I also think Kant's argument about lying as portrayed in the crash course also applies. If you tell the truth, and someone does something bad with that information, you are not responsible. You're not the one taking the action. If you lie and something bad happens, you are directly responsible. This applies to Batman's no kill rule. If Batman doesn’t kill the Joker, Joker killing someone, according to the kantian argument, isn’t because of Batman. Batman acted ethically and the Joker didn’t. If Batman were to kill, he would be responsible for the unethical action, Joker's death. This responsibility would be amplified if Joker would never have killed again because that makes Batman’s actions not justified.
In regards to the trolly problem, Joker would be the one in control of the situation so he would be the one in the trolly. The people lying on the tracks are on one side being the innocent civilians and on the other side being the convicts. I think batman would be the bystander. We talked about their being a bystander who gets to make the decision as we got further into the trolly discussion. The bystander has to look at the situation given and think about who he wants the trolley to run over. Obviously the movie scenario is a bit different since the people tied to the tracks in the trolly scenario have their own special option in the movie where they can choose to sacrifice the other potential victims. But I think the trolly scenario with the onlooker making the decision would be the most accurate to the movie scenario. I don’t think the batman should kill the joker, with this question I went with the first thought that came to mind and that was the everlasting saying of “How would this make him any better than the enemy”. So batman stooping to the level of the joker doesn't seem like something he would do character wise. He would much rather see that he is being punished for his crimes for the rest of his life. But at some point batman needs to realise that something isn’t working and he might need a new approach, whether it's killing or not, because the joker always finds a way out. And clearly the joker is aware that Batman isn’t killing him since he knows that he has the opportunity time and time again. The joker uses that fact to his advantage. I feel like superheros should have a no killing code, it makes them seem above the law and causes people to start to think that they can be above it too. Obviously things happen and there are going to be deaths but a lot of superheroes can just get careless since who is there to stop them. In captain america civil war they touched on this and it made sense. There needs to be someone to keep them in check.
ReplyDelete-Andersen Im leaving now
2- I think at this point Batman should kill the Joker. I know Batman has a no-kill code but I think that at this point he should. The Joker has caused so much hurt and so much death for years and there is seemingly no end to it. It would be better for everyone if he killed the Joker, there would be one less person hurting and killing people. I think that he should be killed to stop people in the future from being killed, it could also be for the people he hurt in the past. To me it would be more important to just stop future hurt.
ReplyDelete3- I think they should not kill someone right away. If it is like the Joker and they just keep getting out of prison and hurting more people then I think that the superheroes should kill the villain. I think that when they just keep letting the villains get out it just leads to more crime. They just get out or get away and they won't change what they were doing they’ll just keep committing crimes. I know that most of the superheroes who have a no-killing code are trying to be as good as they can be but they are just letting more bad spread when they just let the villains go.
4- I think that it is useful to an extent. Act utilitarianism would be more useful for decision making in life. I think people act in a utilitarianism way more than they even realize. A lot of people act so that others will be happy, and that more people will be happy. They act in an act utilitarian mindset rather than a rule utilitarian way. I think trying to follow set rules is not a great way to make decisions because there will always be some kind of exception.
1. This dilemma relates to the trolley question in the way that everytime Batman decides to not kill the Joker, more people will inevitably die due to the Joker, just like if you don't change the direction of the trolley, more people would die than if you had chose to deliberately kill the one person.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Batman should kill the Joker, because if Batman decides to kill the Joker based off everything he has done and will inevitably due, he would save many more innocent people. He lets the Joker go, knowing that he will always breakout and kill many more. The instant he makes the decision not to kill the Joker, he has condemned the lives of multiple innocent souls, who end up resenting Batman anyway. Killing the Joker does not make Batman a monster, due to Joker's continuous terrorism.
3. I do not think that superheros should have a no killing code. That doesn't mean that they should just go around killing whoever breaks the law. But if someone is able to continuously breakout of confinement and kill people, then there is obviously no other solution to assure the security of the people. If it's not possible to condemn someone through the law, then killing must become the last resort.
4. Utilitarianism is very useful in the real life. When someone is being a total destructive force to society and the security of the people, "correct" moral values have no place in the decision to neutralize this individual. The people must be protected, so this threat must be killed. Simple.
5. Batman behaves like a true Kantian, as Joker is trying to prove that Batman can and will kill, and if Batman can kill, then lesser men surely can as well, and not many men are greater than Batman. Batman resists by not killing. To continue to set the example for the desperate people of Gotham.