I was originally going to write another long review on The Batman, but because some people have been asking me things like “Why won’t Batman just kill the Joker?”
So I’ll wrap up The Batman very quickly, and then present my answer to those questions. Here’s the quick review. It’s pretty much summed up in 1 sentence: I loved The Batman. While it can’t really live up to the original Animated Series (what can?), Gordon starts playing a bigger role starting Season 3, and Batman changes into THE Batman that we all know and love – the lonely vigilante who’s dedicated his life to fighting crime. No matter how desperate the situation might seem, Batman always finds a way to save the day. The villain has telepathy? No worries; Batman knows how to clear his mind (something he learned from the Tibetan monks, according to The Joining: Part 1), so the villain can’t get any reading out of Batman.
One thing that I really commend the series is that it knew exactly when to end. Just as I felt by the end of season 5 that it was running out of creativity and dragging on, it gives a 2 part episode and wraps the series to its conclusion. That was something that lacked even in the Animated Series.
That’s it for The Batman. Now onto the questions.
Q: Why won’t Batman just kill the Joker?
A: Indeed, why doesn’t he? Joker has proven time to time that it will only be a matter of time before he escapes Arkam Asylum, only to return and kill even more people. So why not prevent it? What’s so wrong with killing one person to save more?
Before rushing into a conclusion, let me present you two scenarios. One, there’s a train that’s about to hit 5 people. There’s no way those 5 people can avoid being hi. However, you’re in the position to change the train track. BUT, there’s 1 person on the other track, who’s just as impossible to avoid being hit. Will you change the train track? Most people don’t have too much problem changing the track. At least most of us are willing to forgive the guy who took action and changed the track.
Another scenario: you’re a doctor who has 5 patients needing organ translate. They all need different organs, and you are unable to get any donor, so it seems that the patients are doomed. Then you spot your coworker, a really lazy doctor who just sits there getting paid doing nothing except cheating insurance companies, making all doctors look bad. Your lazy coworker also happens to be an exact match for your 5 patients; so strictly speaking, you can kill your coworker and save the 5 patients! Sure, it’s illegal to kill, but who’s gonna know? Plus you’d be getting rid of a horrible doctor, and saving the lives of 5 people. Would you go ahead and kill your coworker? Most people wouldn’t.
So what makes the first scenario different from the second scenario? The utilitarian philosophy (a philosophy that believes in maximizing the happiness of the society, that the ends always justify the means) would argue that there is no difference, that in both cases, you should take action and save 5 people. On the other end of the spectrum, however, there’s deontology (a philosophy that believes morality of an act based on features intrinsic to the act itself, so the ends never justify the means), which would argue that in both cases taking action would be wrong because you have killed people.
So how does Joker relate to that? In my opinion, the reason Batman refuses to kill the Joker is that he is afraid of the last piece of sanity that he has. Batman tries to take a middle ground between the two schools of thought. He is willing to do anything to get the job done, as long as it doesn’t involve killing people. If he violated that one rule, then where would he stop? If he killed the Joker, what about Two-Face? What about Poison Ivy? What about Mr. Freeze?
You can argue that there’s an optimal point, but being the imperfect species we are, no one person can know for sure what the optimal point is. Only God knows the answer, and having Batman kill the villain would be having him play God. That’s why Batman chooses the optimal point to be the refusal to kill, even though this means having to play cat-and-mouse with the Joker until the day Joker dies (and yes, Joker does die one day, but I won’t give away how that happens).
Posts
3 comments:
You can argue Batman doesn't kill for reasons of self preservation.
1. If he killed all the villains, the show wouldn't last very long.
2. Not killing is the reason he is able to skirt and semi-cooperate with the law. He's a vigilante HERO, which means he has to set himself apart from the criminals. If he started killing people the police would be forced to pursue and arrest him.
Also as the Dark Knight nicely shows, Batman is the reason that Joker and the other super villains exist in the first place. Killing them would be destroying the reasons for his existence.
Finally, your analogy. People would divert the train, but would not kill the doctor because they're cowards, but also because you're presenting the scenarios in a vacuum.
In the first instance, you change the direction of the train by pressing a button (hitting a lever), you probably don't even have to face the results of your action (the person dies), whereas in the second instance you would have to get your hands dirty (although I guess you could hire a hitman...).
What people do in these scenarios aren't absolutes of course, but rather vary depending on circumstances. What if your family member is one (or all) of the five people who needs an organ? What if the five people the train will hit are mass murders while the person you would kill by diverting the train is Barack Obama? Point is, who your decision affects (nice way of saying who you kill) matters in you making the decision...
First, I think the practical reason that Batman never kills is that most of the comics, shows, etc. were intended to be readable by individuals under the age of 18, so having a hero who kills would open up DC to a whole host of lawsuits. I think this is particularly true in The Batman because it was intended as a children's show. Besides, this whole "Dark Batman" trend only started in DC comics recently.
In addition, the reason Batman never kills is his principles. For example, Batman never uses a gun (as his parents were killed by a man with a gun) and neither do Batgirl, Nightwing, and the various incarnations of Robin. The only member of the Batman family who uses a gun is Alfred (and only for self-defense). Batman never uses a gun because then he would be no different than the man who killed his parents, completely invalidating his pursuit of justice. His rationality for killing is in fact the same.
There is actually a scene in the comics where Batman does contemplate killing the Joker (in the Hush storyline). Batman believes that the Joker has killed Bruce Wayne's childhood friend, Thomas Elliot (although we later learn this is a frame-up) and Batman is so incensed that he considers killing the Joker in order to ensure that he will harm no one else. In fact, it is a retired Jim Gordon (who lost his wife to the Joker) who dissuades Batman saying that if Batman kills the Joker, he becomes no different from the criminals and murderers he hunts. In fact, Batman himself admits that "I made a promise on the graves of my parents that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. Tonight...I nearly became a part of that evil..."
In short, Batman's MO is to toe and cross the lines of the law to make sure that justice is executed, but crossing that particular line undoes his entire quest.
The situation with the Joker is a bit different than the examples you mentioned. In particular, you mentioned that the Joker is a murderer and had been convicted as such. In that case, killing him might be tantamount to administering the death penalty. True, Batman shouldn't be taking on the authority of a legislative body, but as Jay said, your analogies are in a void. Maybe the proper analogy to make would be: "should the death penalty be administered?"
Post a Comment