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?
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 in real life? Why or why not?
300 words total. Due by class on Thursday, May 30.
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
As we’ve discussed countless times in class, the moral dilemma that is the trolley problem has no correct answer. There are multiple ways this situation could be described, but it is very interesting hearing what other people’s stances are on the question. One of the trolley problem scenarios that best illustrate Batman’s dilemma with killing the Joker would probably be the one mentioned in the article where five innocent people are tied down to one track and the Joker is on the other. Without using a cheap excuse by saying “because he’s Batman” and Batman somehow saves the lives of the five people and catches the Joker, I truly think that Batman would have a very difficult decision to make.
ReplyDeleteShould Batman kill his greatest enemy, the Joker: no. Batman should not kill the Joker. Without including my personal bias on the subject, I think Batman has made the right choice in not killing villains, even the Joker. Batman feels that if he finally caves in and kills the Joker that he will be unable to stop himself from killing all the other villains he goes up against. One example where a hero has gone a killing spree after killing a villain would be Superman. The Joker tricked Superman into killing the love of his life, Louis Lane, which drove Superman mad. This led to him killing the Joker. From that point on, Superman became like a dictator, killing anyone who got in his way of driving his beliefs around the world. If someone as powerful as the Man Of Steel goes beyond the point of return with killing, Batman definitely shouldn’t do it.
That being said, should all superheroes have a no-killing code? Yes, I think they should. Despite all the crime that villains cause in their respective cities, superheroes shouldn’t kill them. Now, this no-killing rule doesn’t apply to world/universal ending threats, such as Doomsday or Thanos, as if they aren’t killed the casualties will be too great to bear. But I think most bad guys are at the very least capable of being detained for a long period of time to keep people safe.
Utilitarianism isn’t very useful in real life. Not all situations can be solved with, “what’s the greatest number of lives we can save?” There are times where there are more factors that need to be considered, such as a person’s morality or your personal connection to that person.
-Jordan Matthews
I think that the trolley problem situation that best resembles the Joker and Batman would be the basic losing one person by switching the track or losing five by not switching the track. In my opinion I think that Batman more represents the trolley and that the joker should be the one on the switched track and the of the civilians of Gotham are represented in the five on the other track.I think that Batman mostly represents the trolley because he is the one with the “killing code” and he toys with his morals when dealing with the Joker.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feeling about whether or not Batman should or should have killed the Joker. On one hand yes I do empathize for all the bystanders that have been killed by the Joker. Obviously he is the “cruelest of the cruel” and could never even live long enough to serve for all his crimes; but on the other hand the Joker is my all time favorite DC character and i feel that if he would have been gone earlier the Batman series would be straight garbage. I could never seen myself watching a Batman movie without getting excited when seeing Heath Ledger and what would suicide squad even be without the Joker? That would be so boring! The main crimes that i do think the Joker is completely vial for would have to be either of these two: in one of the comics that i read the joker wiped out china i really can't remember exactly what comic this was but i remember thinking that was completely insane. Then of course of the actions that have taken place between him and Harley are just awful.
I really don't believe that our superheroes should have a no killing code. Not to seem dark or anything but i feel like that would take so much away from the purpose of having superheroes in the first place. Their purpose is to protect and rid the streets of harmful villains and how would that work without harming them in some way?
I feel that utilitarianism is useful in a fictional world such as the DC and Marvel universes but in day to day life that would case so much controversy. Much like the situation with the trolley where the fat man was pushed in front to stop the train and we had talked about how that implicates the person choosing to push them off even more so than just switching the track. I feel like if we went with this mentality all the time that almost everyone would feel the guilt of choosing to push this man off the bridge.
-Riana Richards
1. The trolley problem is a large dilemma that has no right or wrong answer. If the Joker was the one driving the trolley then I believe he would pick the route to kill five people, not just the one. It says in the article “Bruce is allowed to divert the train and kill one person rather than five, but it is valid also for Bruce to have problems with doing this himself.” When we get to the Joker who was standing on the trolley and the other five victims who were tied onto the track, it is a mere game of chicken and to see who Batman chooses to save: A villain or five innocent people. If you were inclined to kill one to save five, the only way to feel better about this situation is to know these five are in danger because of that one.
ReplyDelete2. I believe Batman should kill the Joker. For the purpose of preventing his future crimes and for punishment for all the other terrible things he did. But Batman would never kill him for the purpose of punishment for his previous crimes because that is not who he is. It goes against all of his morals. Batman should kill the Joker because the Joker will continue to break out of any prison or mental asylum that Batman will put him in and will continue to wreak havoc throughout the city. The only way to get him to stop is by killing him.
3. No superheroes should not have a no-killing code because some super villains will continue to break out of jail or mental asylums and the only way to truly get rid of a villain is to eliminate them and kill them.
4. Utilitarianism is a system of ethics that requires us to maximize the total happiness or well-being resulting from our actions. I believe this is a useful concept the outcome of different situations can usually affect how I am feeling and if something good happens then I am usually in a good mood.
-Brody Hiipakka
1. Joker, in his decision to put Batman up in deciding whether to save his love or the hero of Gotham, Joker moreso resembles the initial trolley problem of deciding between five men and one. Rachel is simpler- she represents the one person whom you love on the tracks. Harvey Dent represents the five men, in that his genuine plan for saving the city will save five, and probably more, people.
ReplyDelete2. Batman should not kill the Joker unless it would directly save more people, and it is after trying to reason with him. But this has some large requirements. If we boil this decision down to its essentials, Batman finds himself in an endless cycle. The joker commits a crime. Batman decides to let him live. The joker goes to prison but escapes. The joker commits a crime, and thus the cycle repeats ad infinitum. Such that the Joker escaping from prison seems something of a certainty. If Bruce Wayne were to boost security to a point that it is impossible for even the Joker to escape from, he would solve his problem. Secondly, he could get the Joker to stop committing crimes through reason or otherwise. Joker would find his crimes quite a bit harder to commit if he were confined to a wheelchair. Third, Batman can kill Joker to stop him forever. But this violates Batman’s rule and is therefore the last resort.
3. It depends on the superhero and the villain. Superman should not beat a common crook to fine mist, but he should perhaps kill Darkseid, whose very base presence instantly creates multiple, villainous selves across the universe, to stop his destruction.
4. Utilitarianism is useful in some instances and unuseful in others. For example, it is easier to reason in utilitarian fashion the less emotionally invested someone is, the Trolley Problem being a good example of this. Most people would choose the one random person over the 5, but the facts change for the 5 people vs 1 loved one.
Jake Stollman
When it comes to the trolley scenario, I think that Batman takes the approach of killing the five people to save one. I say this because, Batman allowing the Joker to live, simply allows the Joker to continue to kill more innocent civilians of Gotham. I am not sure whether I believe that Batman should kill the Joker or not. On one side, if Batman continuously allows the Joker to live, more innocent people’s lives could possibly be at stake, and the cycle of chaos and terror would forever continue. However, it could be good for Batman if he did not kill the Joker, because he would be able to keep on honoring his moral code of not killing people. On the other hand, if Batman did decide to kill the Joker, he would save countless human lives, but he would technically become a murderer just like his arch nemesis, the Joker. He also would be breaking his “one rule” he made for himself as a super hero. I think that super heros should not have a “no-killing code.” Although, I do think that super heros should not be able to kill just any ordinary villain. They should have a justice system in which punishment given is correlated specifically to the severity of the crime they have committed. This would prevent unwarranted killings; keeping both super heros and super villains in check, while also protecting civilians from harms made by these villains. This system would also deal the justice that would be deserved by villains without being lawless and uncontrolled. Utilitarianism claims that actions are right only if they are useful for the benefit of a majority. I believe utilitarianism can be useful in real life, but there are some situations in which it is not useful, and could be morally wrong. For example, during the colonial era, slavery was useful and helpful to the majority of people, however that did not mean it was not a moral dilemma. Utilitarianism can be good as well though, as we have discussed in class about the trolley situation. If the bystander decides to flip the switch to only kill one person, they are benefiting the majority by saving five lives; it explains the idea that saving more lives is more beneficial than saving only one.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your questions about Batman and the Joker I think that the variation of the trolly problem where there is a fat man that can stop the trolly from killing all of the citizens is the most accurate. This fits the best if we see the Batman as the fat man and he is sacrificing his “life” to protect the city of Gotham from the Joker/the trolly. The Batman should not kill the Joker because then he becomes judge, jury, and executioner which makes him less pure as a hero and it also might make him start caring less about the citizens of Gotham and humanity in general he may just start killing anyone he dreams bad from the four year old who steals a candy bar by accident to the man who litters or the guy who robs a bank and kills two people. By killing he might blur the lines enough so that he sees all of these people as guilty of the same punishment, death.Our heroes should definitely have a no killing policy because if they start killing what is to make them stop they could become the dog who gets a taste for human flesh and likes it so he just keeps devouring and that’s nobody's hero. Also if hero’s kill then what is to stop them from committing other crimes because they are beholden to no one they could start interfering in international affairs and destroying countries in the name of protecting citizens they could even start charging the . Utilitarianism does play a part in this decision because these people have proven multiple times that they are going to do bad things to good people so from a utilitarian standpoint you should just kill them to prevent the pain of more people.
ReplyDelete1. In the trolley problem, the joker is on the switch track and all the deaths of past and future caused by the Joker or on the straight track. To me it slightly, very, actually absolutely ridiculous that Batman would choose to kill all the people (all though he does not kill anyone) instead of killing the joker. But if the joker is the trolley and batman is on the switch track while the same group is still on the other track, I think that batman would pull the trolley to himself. But if batman cannot kill, can he kill himself? Or is it different because he is doing better for the most people (Utilitarianism).
ReplyDelete2/3.YES. The batman should kill the joker! I understand that for dramatic purposes and for the sake of the plot line it would be extremely boring if the Joker died. But on a moral or philosophical view point, to me its ridiculous that the Joker is not dead yet. I admire Batman's no kill rule and its very noble of him and all that, but he is causing so much harm by not doing the deed and getting his hands dirty. I think the no kill rule can be used, but not in the universe where Batman and the Joker exist together. Its preposterous to me that someone would even attempt to use the no kill rule as an appropriate mindset in this scenario.
4. Utilitarianism is definitely applicable to real life. It keeps things going. Although I do think it should merely be considered instead of taking by law. We should definitely leave room for emotion to take control and to let things go wrong sometimes. But I do not think that utilitarianism should be applied in life or death situations when emotion can lead to a better decision.
In class we have discussed the thinking of utilitarianism, which I have already mentioned in my previous blogs where I discussed the problem of evil and morality. This time we decided to bring in a mainstream movie called “batman the dark knight” to illustrate the trolley problem in one of Cristopher Nolan’s movies. The situation presented in the movie is as follows: After capturing the Joker, Batman has a decision to make to either let him live, and let countless of innocent people die, or just kill the source of the problem, AKA the Joker. However, there is a moral complication behind this decision to kill the joker, that is, we can’t be sure that the joker will kill again. Yet, wouldn’t it be just fair to say that because he had committed these crimes previously shouldn’t he just be killed as proper punishment? Personally, I would agree that because of the crimes committed previously he should be punished as such. I think its proper justice. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, the saying goes. Though obviously this mindset of thinking doesn’t always apply, but I do not want to drift off topic here. Should a superhero have a no-killing code? Yes, because a superhero is essentially a police officer, right? Ergo, the hero should not be able to kill anyone, as long as the possibility of capturing the villain does not endanger the lives of others. I think that utilitarianism is useful in some cases of choice. It does a pretty good job at explaining the fundamentals of what a good action is or a bad one by just saying: “hey does this help the majority or will it hurt it?”. Yes, there are flaws in it such as ignoring the rights of the minority but logically the majority trumps the minority. But we should always keep in mind the risks that come with each decision. Then we must truly ask ourselves what the costs and benefits are for each decision made.
ReplyDelete