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?
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?
Pick 3 of the questions above to answer.
2) I believe that Batman should kill the joker. In the article, it says that if Batman kills the Joker, then the Joker wins because that’s his ultimate goal and everything that he does is to see if it’ll finally break Batman and get him to kill him. I don’t really know anything about Batman or the Joker, but I know that The Joker causes so many problems and that he’s the evil one amongst the two, so it makes sense to me that he should be killed, even if it technically means that Batman has lost. His loss is worth it for all the things that the Joker has done. Not only should he be executed or his past crimes, but we’re unknowing of the future and what kind of things he could do, so it’s better to not find out rather than to risk it.
ReplyDelete3) No, superheroes should not have a no-killing code. Unfortunately, there are bad people in the world and if they are at risk for putting the majority of people in harm, then they should probably be killed. A superhero doesn’t become any less of a superhero for killing somebody, and in the circumstance that they are killing someone, it would likely be in order to save other innocent lives. Not killing the criminal would just cause harm in the end so it’s worth it for the superhero to kill them, I think.
4) I think that the concept of utilitarianism is useful for real-life decisions because most of the time, our decisions aren’t as dramatic as they are presented in the Batman and Joker movie, where the people on the boats have to decide which boat gets blown up. For small decisions, like where to eat that would satisfy most of the people in the group you’re eating with, the concept of utilitarianism makes more sense realistically.
Recently, I’ve expanded my nerdiness and started getting into comics, and I, completely by accident, became a big DC fan, and I’ve especially become a fan of Batman’s comics. I feel that I’ve been conditioned by the properties and media that I have consumed to have a very clear answer to the question: “Should Batman Kill the Joker?”; and that answer, of course, is no. Throughout all of the good DC media, this question has been brought up and answered, even without Batman as the driving force behind the answer. In the animated Justice League series’ season two finale “A Better World”, after President Lex Luthor causes the death of the Flash, the rest of the group raids the White House, and Superman kills Luthor. This spirals into a dictatorship where the “Justice Lords” become authoritarian leaders, and end up finding a parallel universe with both a living Flash and a living Luthor (the universe that the audience has been watching for the past few seasons). The Lords then proceed in an attempt to “enlighten” this Justice League. The reason that Batman doesn’t kill the Joker is that after he crosses that line once, he could never stop, and I think that is a justifiable reason, even without going into what the article talks about; namely that Batman killing the Joker would mean that the Joker wins their 82-year long fight.
ReplyDeleteI think that the concept of utilitarianism is useful in making decisions, but there are some flaws in the concept that the “Thought Experiment” of the Joker brings to light; a utilitarian viewpoint would mandate that Batman kill the Joker, however, in pretty much every other context, it’s clear that killing the Joker will not be the best option to pursue. In many other cases, I find the utilitarian viewpoint incredibly useful. Impartially taking a look at a situation and trying to figure out what will do the most good for the most people is an extremely valuable trait to possess, and while I don’t believe that I possess it, it’s something that I would like to work towards as a person.
Finally, I want to talk about Batman and Immanuel Kant. Kant’s Categorical Imperative, whether Bruce Wayne is aware of it or not, has a profound impact on how he chooses to live his double life. The maxim concerning the Universal Laws, in particular, seems to be the driving force behind Batman’s moral code: if everyone killed people, that would not be a good world to live in, so you should never kill another person, no matter what that person has done.
Overall, this is a really interesting philosophical question that a property I enjoy brings up. Comics and nerd stuff are very much part of the zeitgeist of the 21st century, and we as a people can learn real lessons and have real takeaways from these stories of a man who dresses up like a bat fighting against a serial killer who always wears clown makeup. The power of stories is something that I’m really interested in, and want to be a part of as I come into my professional life.
3. Well this is a weird situation because I really don’t think the Joker is realistic- so in our world, where a criminal who is consistently able to break out of even the most maximum security prisons does not exist, I don’t think Batman should kill the Joker. But in this fictional world, where we somehow know for certain that Joker will kill again, I think his killing would be justified. On the other hand, if I was put in Batman’s shoes, I don’t think I could pull the trigger. Can we ask Batman to end another person’s life? I think that’s immoral too, but maybe killing Joker is the lesser of these evils.
ReplyDelete4. It’s useful as a theoretical tool to use for guidance, but not as a binding moral theory. How do you even measure good or bad? How can you truly tell what will cause the most/least suffering? What will cause the least amount of suffering/bad?-- This should be taken into consideration when making decisions, but not in such a rigid way. Morality is not black and white. That means that morals are difficult and different for everyone, but it’s dangerous to act like there could be a simple solution to such a challenging situation as the Trolley Problem.
5. I don’t think so. Regardless of his justification, it’s really just because he doesn’t want to have to kill. The article mentions how killing the Joker would be playing right into his hands, but why should that matter? Why blindly play along with his game and try to win? Shouldn’t what the Joker wants not matter? So what if he wants you to kill him? What would he care? He would be dead afterwards anyway. If this argument is used, Batman is putting civilians in harm’s way simply to win a game.
Bailey M.
2) As a huge Batman fan, I am for sure on the side that Batman should not kill the Joker. If Batman gives in and goes against his own code, Joker essentially wins. The wholee goal of the Joker is to “break” Batman, and make him betray his own ethics. However even though the Joker is killing so many, in this universe at least, it is not up to Batman to choose whether he dies or not. It’s a slippery slope. If Batman kills one villain, where would he stop? Should he kill the rest of the villains? No, I don’t believe so. Batman, although working outside of the law, very much still attempts to stay within the bounds of the law. He only bring the villains to justice. He himself is nt the executioner. So, as horrible as the Joker’s crimes are, it is not Batman’s responsibility to kill him, nor should he.
ReplyDelete3) Superheros should not kill. Afterall, just as Batman says, what is the difference then from the hero and the person who killed his parents? It would completely go against the moral code of what being a hero is. As someone who is very much against the death penatly, in this hypothetical universe, I don’t believe superheros acting as executioners will do anything better for society. After all, they don’t necessarily work within the law. This could lead to situations where we see deaths of criminals at a dispropotional rate, and we cannot exactly determine under the law if these people who are killed by heros were actually criminals. So I believe that no, we should not allow heros to kill.
4) Yes, I do believe that utilitarianism is something extremely helpful in the case of making decisions. Overall, we should choose actions that do the least amount of harm to others, even if we ourselves are going to suffer.The greatest good for the greatest number is in my opinion, pretty much always going to be the correct choice.
2. I think it would solve a lot of problems if he did but, he is still a public figure who is a mentor to children. Not only that but he has to work with the police. If he doesn’t work with them then he gets arrested, his identity revealed, and most likely prison. So even without the moral implications and the fact it’s not real life you still can’t do it. Which means that he really can’t kill the joker. It’s almost poetic in a way. Two people fated to fight forever, one because he doesn't want to kill the other, and the other because he can’t
ReplyDelete3. I think when it comes to this question, I’m at a bit of a stand still. Because on the one hand I am against killing. I don’t like the death penalty and I just generally think that the best possible decision is to not kill someone. However, in the world of DC the villains always get out and start causing problems again. So, I mean you could just kill them and get it over with but if we look at it as a story and not just within the world. What’s the point of killing them off? Especially with comic books because if they're dead than the stories.
4. I think it is. Especially when they were talking about the birthday dinner where you want Thai food but no one else does, so you get Chinese, so that the other people might not be eating their favorite food, at least they do like it. I know this would be a very helpful concept for my sister to learn so she would stop making the rest of my family miserable when she refuses to eat or watch anything that she doesn’t choose. But also, I think of all the things we learned about utilitarianism is the one that has the most things I agree with and would probably choose that decision if put in it.
-Emma Moskovitz
ReplyDelete1. The very obvious example of the trolley problem is the two ferries in the movie. If no action is taken in the trolly problem, a greater number of human beings will die. The same things happen in the movie, if no action is taken, both ferries will blow up killing all the people instead of half (in theory). In the trolly problem if you take action you actively kill a person instead of passively killing more people. The same thing of course occurs on the ferries, you HAVE to PHYSICALLY press a button to kill the smaller number of people. It is the active role in killing less that adds guilt to anyone that is non-utilitarian.
2. I think the Batman needs to kill the Joker for both past and future crimes. When Batman does not kill the Joker, and even saves him from dying by falling off the building, he is allowing for his future crimes (more killings) to occur. I don’t love utilitarian ethics when innocent people are involved and it is just a numbers game, but the Joker is nowhere near innocent. He has killed many before and will continue undoubtedly. He should be killed, not killing him is reckless because it will cost the lives of many innocent people. Honestly, I’m not really sure why the legal system hasn’t given him the death sentence in this universe.
3. I don’t think they should have a strict no-killing code. I obviously think Batman should kill the Joker, because not killing him is reckless. However, I don’t think they should hold a complete killing is cool if it saves more people. Innocent people should not be killed in order to save other innocent people. I’m sure this thinking is flawed, but to bring it back to the doctor killing a healthy man for their organs to save five people in need of those organs, I don’t think the doctor should kill, and I don’t think a superhero adjacent scenario should be any different.
2. I believe that Batman should kill the Joker to prevent future crimes. The joker is only going to cause more problems for the city. As we saw in the movie, even if they arrest the joker he will find a way to get out of jail. He is too smart and too powerful to be locked in a jail cell. The joker has already caused a great deal of damage to the city. He is not going to stop due to the satisfaction he gets from it. More innocent people will die if Batman decides to let the joker live.
ReplyDelete3. I do not think that there should be a no killing code for superheroes. The job of superheroes is to keep the domain which they protect safe. Sometimes the best way of doing this is to kill the villains. Certain situations call for specific actions, so it would be wrong to have a code that does not allow killing. At times, superheroes kill to protect themselves from being killed. This code would prevent that, putting the superheroes at more risk and in more danger. The lives of the superheroes and the civilians are more important than the villains' lives, so killing a villian should be allowed if it protects the rest of the city
4) The usefulness of utilitarianism in real life decisions depends on the specific situation. In the situation described in the movie I do not think that utilitarianism would help achieve the best result. I do not think it is fair to have one boat get blown up over the other, even though it saves all of the people in one boat. I think that because of this, utilitarianism fails in this situation. In the movie the citizens and prisoners decided not to take this approach and it ended up working in the end.
-Charlie Cusimano
The best way I see the Batman and Joker situation relate to the trolley problem is that the trolley is headed towards a crowd of people, and the joker is driving the trolley and is not stopping. Batman has the ability to kill the joker and stop the trolley and in return save the crowd, but he refuses to do so because he does not want the death of the joker in his hands. Instead, He tries to save as many people as he can but never takes the decision to kill the joker and ultimately save everyone standing in the way of the trolley.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think that Batman should kill the joker. The one thing the Joker wants is for Batman to kill him and break his moral code. Batman refuses to kill the joker because if he does, even though he wants to, he will become just like the joker and the joker will win. The way he sees it is that first of all both of them will be killers and there won't be any difference between him and the joker, they both will be killers. Also if he allows himself to kill he doesn't know how far he will keep going and how many more people he will kill.
I think that morally superheroes should have a no killing code. I don't think that individuals should have the right to decide by themselves if someone has the right to live or to die. Even if they eventually have to kill a person to save other innocent people, superheroes should do everything in their power to not kill individuals that have or that are trying to cause harm.
-Elliot Viaud-Murat
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)?
ReplyDeleteI think the joker would be both the trolly and the victim who gets hit when the track is moved. The victims of the joker are the people who would get hit if the trolley is not movined, and Bruce Wayne is the man with the power to change the direction of the trolley. I believe this because in this case, the joker is killing people like the trolley, but to stop it you must be killing someone, there is some moral repercussion, hence the joker also being killed in this scenario
.
2. Should the Batman kill the Joker? Why or why not? And if so, for what crimes - past or to prevent future crimes?
I think the Joker should be killed. He is a total nihilist who has publicly shown his disposition to violence and willingness to kill innocent people and the ability to do so. Normally, I would not argue for the killing of a person, but in this case, it would be the Batman killing, not the government. If the government got involved, the ability for corruption would make the risk too great and I would say to not kill the joker. But because it is Batman, I say Batman should kill the Joker, to save future lives. The joker has shown that he is willing and wants to kill again, not chance of redemption, so he should be killed to prevent future crimes.
3. Should our superheroes have a no-killing code? Why or why not? Does it just lead to more crime?
I think if someone wants to be labeled as a superhero and fight violence, they should try to avoid killing as much as possible, especially when the superhero does not know the motivations or t7he history of the villain, if they can be helped or perhaps understood, then they should be given the chance of life. Redemption and rehabilitation should always be the goal, and yet, if it comes down to it to save innocent people, a superhero should be able to kill a villain to save the majority, just like in the case of the Joker where if he lives, it is almost certain more will die.
Lily D.
2.
ReplyDeleteThe first question makes me think of many things. Not only is the question to kill or to not kill philosophical but it’s moral. There are two factors that are being taken into consideration. First, killing the joker is considered a punishment to him for what he’s done. But by killing him, the Joker has won. By killing the joker, I think Batman is setting aside his pride and his morals as a superhero. If Batman were to kill him, he’s doing many things. He’s giving the joker what he wants and he’s hurting himself. Killing the Joker will not bring back the lives the Joker took. Maybe other people like civilians would like to see Batman kill the Joker. But if Batman kills him I don’t think he becomes any better than the Joker. Then again, if he killed the Joker who would his arch nemesis become?
3.
The burning question, should superheroes have a no-killing code? I think this is a tough question. But I’m brought back to the Trolley Problem. When the Avengers get together to defeat Thanos, they’re trying to kill 1 “person?” to avoid half of the world getting wiped out. That’s a very large ratio. The whole thing about superheroes is that they are supposed to be good examples. If they killed people, would they be showing the world that it’s okay to kill? Or would people know that these killings are more than likely for a good cause, example, The Joker and Thanos. With this people should be able to know whether or not a death is “lawful” or not. But people also have different morals. I think there are a lot of factors that could be played in. Overall, I think Superheroes should probably avoid killing people. There are better punishments than to kill people. Maybe The Joker could be sentenced to life in Prison. Wait a minute, why isn’t that man in prison already?
4.
The utilitarian belief can be useful sometimes I think. At some points it may be a better idea to save the greater good. In the case of the trolley problem, when it’s one person versus five people you’d choose to kill the one. But when that one person becomes a loved one, you choose to kill the five. I think using utilitarian beliefs should depend on the situation.
Taylor H.
The best scenario that fits this situation in the trolley problem would be batman being the bystander and the joker as the trolley, with the choice to either kill one person (being the joker) with potentially saving more lives or kill the group of people on the other side in order to save the joker. For me, this choice is a difficult one and definitely feels sweet and sour. Batman has a good point for not killing the joker. It sets a specific standard and killing him would make him no different than the joker himself, because he would be a murderer just like him. Killing him though, would prevent the death of future lives and other unnecessary deaths. In my personal belief, I believe that batman should not kill the joker. I think that this sets a standard for other superheroes and is not something that should be part of a moral code. Killing the joker could lead to killing other criminals, and batman would be no different than the joker. I think that superheroes should have a moral code of sorts, incorporating a no-killing code. There should be a set difference between superheroes and criminals, making them clearly different. Killing criminals is effective, but then they wouldn’t be any different from the criminals themselves and wouldn’t even be called superheroes, more like bounty hunters. I think this could lead to more crime, but crime is inevitable, as humans are humans. I think that the concept of utilitarianism could be useful in some situations today, but it has limits. It could be different to each person and some people have different ways of viewing the trolley situation regarding who they should save. I think batman would definitely be a kantian in the sense that he always goes by his moral code and follows it strictly, even if other lives could be saved, batman still refuses to kill.
ReplyDeleteAlex H.
Before I get into the reasoning of why batman should kill the joker I’m just going to flat out say I think that he should. with the trolley car sequence in mind it’s clear the joker has lost all conscious grip on giving a shit. The people on board were to determine the fate of the other boat but neither sides went through with the act, even though they were told 100% they’d die if they didn’t. When the clock hit 12 and neither boat had pulled trigger the weight was lifted because by that point it meant neither side had the strength to go against their morals.
ReplyDeleteI think the batman has had so many opportunities to put an end to the suffering of the city but he hasn’t due to his own moral agenda. To me it looks like if he kills the joker he will lose a purpose and will just be a rich man with nothing to do. Batman says he’s against violence and killing but him refusing to do any significant damage to the joker has cost more lives than batman is even worth. Superhero’s are like high powered cops and it’s only fair that if they want to use their powers to “help” then they need to be regulated just as a cop would be. Superhero’s don’t get final say especially on someone’s death out of vengeance, neither do cops. If the superhero is capable to capturing a criminal that a police force was unsuccessful in doing that doesn’t mean they get to deal with that villain according to what they want. When there is an active threat that can only be stopped by being killed or injured then the necessary precautions should be taken, and in that case killing would be an acceptable response. Batman would like to be known as the ultimate utilitarian but he’s frequently side tracked by his own agenda. This man love vengeance like that’s not so happy hand holding behavior.
morgan
2. I am at a loss when it comes to whether or not Batman should kill the joker. Part of me believes killing him would be the easy way out, since the joker has no regard for life. I do not think murder to justify murder is morally right per say, but at what expense? If somebody's existence puts the lives of others at risk, is it morally right to put others' lives at the expense of following a moral code? I think the Joker also would find the most pain in being unable to cause pain for others, not necessarily his death. Although Batman is morally superior, considering he is not a murderer unlike the joker. So this is one question that stumps me, as I can see both sides of the argument. But if Batman were to kill the joker, I think it should be for future crimes. Past murders are done, and cannot be changed. KIlling the joker for those would ultimately be out of spite, with no real benefits for humanity. But to prevent future crimes, potentially saving many lives is more morally correct.
ReplyDelete3. I think superheroes for the most part should have a no killing code, considering murder is murder. How would the superhero really be any different than the enemy if they both murder. I think extreme violence would not be the answer. This is coming from my partially humanistic views, which is that a life is a life and has hope for being altered.
5. I think Batman is a true kantian, because he does not alter his moral code. He offers no exceptions to his set of rules much like Kant. Similar to the video about Kant we watched in class, Kant believes even lying to save someone from potential murder is wrong. Batman is similar in that murder is wrong, despite who it is too.
1. This situation can be represented in the Trolley Problem by proposing that the Trolley is headed towards all of the people that the Joker will eventually kill if he is left alive. But Batman can change the direction of the trolley to go down a track that will only kill the Joker. Would Batman take control of the trolley to change the direction of it to kill the Joker and save all of the people?
ReplyDelete2. I think that Batman should kill the Joker to put an end to his madness once and for all. Even though it is against his no-kill policy, I think this is a special exception because of the horrific crimes the Joker has committed and the ones that he will continue to commit. Regarding the point that he won’t kill him due to him wanting to be superior to the criminals he fights against, I think that the Joker is a special circumstance that needs to be killed to save many people. He should be killed to prevent the future crimes that he will commit. There is nothing Batman can do about the past crimes that the Joker committed, but there is something he can do to make sure he doesn’t commit anymore and take anymore lives, and that is to finish him off for good.
3. I don’t think our superheroes should have a no-kill code. They should not kill very often but there are definitely some situations where killing is necessary to save the lives of many innocent people. I don’t think it would lead to more crime because taking out the world’s worst criminals should reduce crime.
Max Kepler