It is not easy for superheroes to make moral choices. We are often convinced of our moral convictions, but we are not infallible. Moral decisions are based upon different ethical theories. Deontologism is the most well-known theory. Deontologism tries to avoid the consequences that our actions may have. It sets out a list of rules, duties and requirements which must all be followed no matter what. On the contrary, utilitarianism subtracts pain and suffering from an action to calculate the happiness it generates. Both are important, but sometimes one is more influential than the other. Superheroes are no different. Some follow deontologism and others utilitarianism. This essay will be a discussion of utilitarianism.
The Joker is one of Batman’s most memorable characters. The Joker seems to be very concerned with demonstrating the corruptibility of a person, as well as showing to himself and to the rest of humanity that everyone is capable to doing bad things. The Joker’s attempt to corrupt Batman fails during the film. The villain, who wanted to show the evil of Batman, probably would have been delighted if Batman killed him. El Guason’s central thesis would have been proven if Batman had killed The Joker. Batman’s killing of The Joker would prove that Batman was not incorruptible. I can now conclude that the Joker wants to prove that anyone under the right circumstances could become as evil as he is. The Joker’s goal is not achieved, at any rate. The Joker is someone who rejects morality in the context of his social life. He elevates himself above moral and positive laws, and he views the society he sees as submissive with disdain.
The Joker is responsible for the deaths of countless citizens in the Gothic City. Batman, the Joker’s victims and even the police are all suffering. The viewer might wonder if this would not make it better for our masked superhero to be reunited with the criminal once and forever. The answer will be yes for many, but it is not as simple when you examine the moral dilemmas of Bruce Wayne and Batman. Batman, however, resists the temptation to kill the Joker. Batman often has villains escape prison after they have spent time in jail. You won’t see it in the film, but this is a common occurrence in his stories. The Joker excels at this. Every time he escapes jail, it is to arm chaos and spread terror. He has a tendency of killing people close to Batman and Bruce Wayne. In light of this, one must ask: why not eliminate the Joker and put an end to all of the suffering?
Batman has never shown that his enemies are killed to prevent him from catching them. It seems like a reasonable answer. I also think that it allows Batman, by refusing to kill The Joker, to take a position of morality which his opponents do not. The Joker often escapes prison, but every time that happens, someone dies. So, is Batman selfish for refusing to eliminate The Joker when he knows that this is the case? Batman should sacrifice his moral integrity in order to save more lives. Although I am not intending to answer the questions above, I want to make a few arguments about their importance and possible answers.
Utilitarians would make a strong case for Batman to kill The Joker. In fact, utilitarianism could be used to support the following arguments. The sacrifice of killing the villain would save many lives. The utilitarian ethics of philosophers like Jeremy Bentham were formally defended. Bentham believed that our actions should be guided by the maximization of happiness for as many people as possible. This is an ethic of consequences, which means that the morality is determined by the results, not just the action itself. In this vision, radical proposals like the ones already mentioned are perfectly protected from a moral standpoint. The ends justifies the methods.
When evaluating our moral actions, utilitarianism asks that we consider whether our actions contribute to the happiness of society as a collective. Utilitarianism considers society to be a group of people. Therefore, the idea of general interests is based on the summation of the individuals’ individual interests. In order to achieve the goal of general happiness, we need a method to determine whether an act is contributing to the welfare of all. It is this principle that determines whether or not an action is right or wrong, based on these criteria (whether it leads to happiness for all). On the basis of this reasoning, one could argue that Batman would be justified in killing The Joker. The Joker would be less happy if Batman killed him, but he would also feel regret for doing so.
The Joker will probably continue to cause tragedies, so avoiding them would make the overall world happier. Batman appears to not be interested in killing The Joker. Batman does not kill because, as mentioned earlier, he thinks that to do so would bring him down to the same moral level as the criminals that he swore to fight. This reasoning is not what I believe it to be. Batman’s view that killing itself is immoral is based on his belief that morality is not determined by the outcome of an action, but rather the nature of that action.
Batman’s acceptance would have outraged a utilitarian. You would have to do this because you are responsible for the welfare of all people. Batman doesn’t teach the same lesson to The Joker. Batman is still doing his best to ensure his own safety. Utilitarian ethical principles have an unfavorable outcome. In a situation in which saving two more lives is better than sacrificing one’s own, the person would be compelled to commit suicide. Batman Begins or comics stories suggest that Batman’s existence is the reason for the super-villain, the Joker. The Dark Knight has been missing in a comic book story, while the Joker was imprisoned at Arkham. He plans to escape the city when he hears the news about Batman’s return. It is as if the hero’s existence complements the clown’s life and gives it meaning.
This paper will present some general aspects of how philosophical elements could be used to analyze Batman. This paper is not intended to make any conclusions. However, it does aim to highlight that philosophy may not be as far as you think.
