(Continued from part 1, part 2)
Batman, despite being the symbol of ethical excellence that he is, has a major flaw in his moral reasoning: his refusal to kill the Joker. Parts 2 through 4 of this series are dedicated to looking at some of the ethical justifications usually given for this. My plan is to demonstrate that none of these reasonings hold water, and by not killing the Joker, Batman is ultimately flaunting his moral duty.
Reason 2 for not killing- it would violate Batman's moral code
Here's a piece of dialogue from Batman: Under the Red Hood:
This is perhaps the most cited material in defense of Batman's one rule.
Let's talk about rule-based reasoning in this context for a second. Batman is a vigilante, and by definition there's no legal or social contract-based rules that apply to him. This is very different from someone like Jim Gordon, who operates by a detailed set of rules legally binding on him. On event of his failing to comply, he wouldn't be on the police force any longer. No such restrictions apply to Batman. In such a scenario, an effective ethical tool would be to draw a line in the sand, to fix some limit which he can never cross. That line, for Batman, is drawn at killing. No matter how good the ethical prospects of a murder looks, since Batman's ethics is defined by adherence to a rule, this rule can never, ever be broken.
So what are the consequences of the rule being broken? In other words, how are we to understand Batman when he says above "I'll never come back"? It can mean two things. First, it can mean that if Batman breaks the rule once, he doesn't have confidence that he's not going to break it a second time, a third time, or even adopt it as a combat strategy. Breaking the rule has the potential to lead to a slippery slope of killing more and more, at which point Batman will become just another criminal and not a force for good. This points comes up poignantly in the following dialogue between Batman and Superman in the Injustice series:
Second, it can mean that while breaking the rule may not necessarily have downstream consequences in terms of his actions, it will damage his own moral fabric in a fundamental way. The act itself will corrupt his soul so much that nothing he does afterwards can redeem him.
Let's take the first meaning. This is not terribly difficult to understand. In many religious traditions, the culture of monasticism has the same internal logic- govern your life by a set of strict rules. No matter how arbitrary (good, even) their occasional violation may seem, the rules of conduct are still maintained to make sure this doesn't initiate a slippery slope of sinning. This concept is prevalent in other aspects of our culture as well- marijuana is often seen negatively not because of its own intrinsic demerits, but because of it acting like a 'gateway drug'- the first push down the slippery slope to more serious and damaging forms of addiction. Right or wrong, the point is well taken; and by analogy I understand perfectly if Batman believes taking one human life may as well lead to his descent down further darkness.
I say I understand it, but I don't agree with it. This is because, as mentioned in the part 1 of this series, the whole theme of Batman is that he's ethically superior to all of us- he represents an unattainable, superhuman moral standard. So normal limitations that may apply to you or me doesn't apply to him. There's no risk of Batman going down a slippery slope of darkness, he can take the Joker's life and yet act responsibly for the rest of his career. Sure, taking one life will make it easier to justify the taking of the next, but that ease of justification shouldn't mean much to Batman. If he can display superhuman levels of willpower and perseverance in all other aspects of his life, he can damn well do it when it comes to something so obvious as "only taking lives when absolutely necessary and justified" as well.
There's an even more fundamental problem here, however, and that affects whichever interpretation you prefer for his one rule. And that has to do with selection of the rule itself. I suggest Batman can't hold on to this rule without being inconsistent. Batman regularly beats up and even brutally tortures criminals for different, perhaps justifying, reasons. So why draw the line at killing one person? Is killing one person more bad than, say, torturing fifty people? It may as well be, but no one can say this distinction isn't too vague for comfort. That's the problem for a vigilante to draw the line at a specific action- clearly, his work involves doing many other things which are arguably just as bad as killing. Now it's true that killing someone needs to have a higher threshold of justification than beating them up or torturing them. But again, torturing fifty vs. killing one? Does the same intuition still apply? That's arguable to say the least.
So, how should the rule have been? Instead of basing his rule arbitrarily on an action, Batman should have based it on a general principle, along the lines of- I will never kill or torture anyone unjustifiably. This principle isn't arbitrary or inconsistent. Sure, it's less concrete since it doesn't specify exactly what to do and what constitutes justification, but that's exactly where the moral challenge is- to analyze each decision impartially to see who deserves what treatment. To say Batman, the ultimate force of good in Gotham, doesn't have the requisite foresight to pull this off is absurd. Here's what Dick Grayson had to say about him in the (admittedly non-canon) Injustice series:
When you think about it, this amended rule is not only practical for Batman in the sense he can practice it consistently, it also mirrors the basic idea of moral challenge in our lives. Sure, a moral challenge can be as simple as knowing murder is wrong with full epistemic certainty, and keeping oneself from committing murder. But perhaps the more common variety of moral challenge we face consists of cases where we're really not sure, on the basis of any sort of a priori philosophizing, which is the right course to take. We need to think about each individual scenario in a case by case basis, think carefully about how best to act in each case (in contrast with already knowing what's the right course of action to take). This perpetual struggle is what constitutes moral training, and it's a result of this training that we cultivate maturity and virtuous character.
So what would really be reflective of Batman's ethical excellence would be for him to accurately analyze each individual situation he finds himself in, and solve it by whatever measure he deems justified, without getting carried away.
In the coming post- we'll conclude by considering one other (pseudo-)justification provided for him not killing the Joker. After that we'll consider why the fundamental premise of this entire discussion may have been wrong- and end on that note.
[To be concluded]
Batman, despite being the symbol of ethical excellence that he is, has a major flaw in his moral reasoning: his refusal to kill the Joker. Parts 2 through 4 of this series are dedicated to looking at some of the ethical justifications usually given for this. My plan is to demonstrate that none of these reasonings hold water, and by not killing the Joker, Batman is ultimately flaunting his moral duty.
Reason 2 for not killing- it would violate Batman's moral code
Here's a piece of dialogue from Batman: Under the Red Hood:
This is perhaps the most cited material in defense of Batman's one rule.
Let's talk about rule-based reasoning in this context for a second. Batman is a vigilante, and by definition there's no legal or social contract-based rules that apply to him. This is very different from someone like Jim Gordon, who operates by a detailed set of rules legally binding on him. On event of his failing to comply, he wouldn't be on the police force any longer. No such restrictions apply to Batman. In such a scenario, an effective ethical tool would be to draw a line in the sand, to fix some limit which he can never cross. That line, for Batman, is drawn at killing. No matter how good the ethical prospects of a murder looks, since Batman's ethics is defined by adherence to a rule, this rule can never, ever be broken.
So what are the consequences of the rule being broken? In other words, how are we to understand Batman when he says above "I'll never come back"? It can mean two things. First, it can mean that if Batman breaks the rule once, he doesn't have confidence that he's not going to break it a second time, a third time, or even adopt it as a combat strategy. Breaking the rule has the potential to lead to a slippery slope of killing more and more, at which point Batman will become just another criminal and not a force for good. This points comes up poignantly in the following dialogue between Batman and Superman in the Injustice series:
Second, it can mean that while breaking the rule may not necessarily have downstream consequences in terms of his actions, it will damage his own moral fabric in a fundamental way. The act itself will corrupt his soul so much that nothing he does afterwards can redeem him.
Let's take the first meaning. This is not terribly difficult to understand. In many religious traditions, the culture of monasticism has the same internal logic- govern your life by a set of strict rules. No matter how arbitrary (good, even) their occasional violation may seem, the rules of conduct are still maintained to make sure this doesn't initiate a slippery slope of sinning. This concept is prevalent in other aspects of our culture as well- marijuana is often seen negatively not because of its own intrinsic demerits, but because of it acting like a 'gateway drug'- the first push down the slippery slope to more serious and damaging forms of addiction. Right or wrong, the point is well taken; and by analogy I understand perfectly if Batman believes taking one human life may as well lead to his descent down further darkness.
I say I understand it, but I don't agree with it. This is because, as mentioned in the part 1 of this series, the whole theme of Batman is that he's ethically superior to all of us- he represents an unattainable, superhuman moral standard. So normal limitations that may apply to you or me doesn't apply to him. There's no risk of Batman going down a slippery slope of darkness, he can take the Joker's life and yet act responsibly for the rest of his career. Sure, taking one life will make it easier to justify the taking of the next, but that ease of justification shouldn't mean much to Batman. If he can display superhuman levels of willpower and perseverance in all other aspects of his life, he can damn well do it when it comes to something so obvious as "only taking lives when absolutely necessary and justified" as well.
There's an even more fundamental problem here, however, and that affects whichever interpretation you prefer for his one rule. And that has to do with selection of the rule itself. I suggest Batman can't hold on to this rule without being inconsistent. Batman regularly beats up and even brutally tortures criminals for different, perhaps justifying, reasons. So why draw the line at killing one person? Is killing one person more bad than, say, torturing fifty people? It may as well be, but no one can say this distinction isn't too vague for comfort. That's the problem for a vigilante to draw the line at a specific action- clearly, his work involves doing many other things which are arguably just as bad as killing. Now it's true that killing someone needs to have a higher threshold of justification than beating them up or torturing them. But again, torturing fifty vs. killing one? Does the same intuition still apply? That's arguable to say the least.
So, how should the rule have been? Instead of basing his rule arbitrarily on an action, Batman should have based it on a general principle, along the lines of- I will never kill or torture anyone unjustifiably. This principle isn't arbitrary or inconsistent. Sure, it's less concrete since it doesn't specify exactly what to do and what constitutes justification, but that's exactly where the moral challenge is- to analyze each decision impartially to see who deserves what treatment. To say Batman, the ultimate force of good in Gotham, doesn't have the requisite foresight to pull this off is absurd. Here's what Dick Grayson had to say about him in the (admittedly non-canon) Injustice series:
When you think about it, this amended rule is not only practical for Batman in the sense he can practice it consistently, it also mirrors the basic idea of moral challenge in our lives. Sure, a moral challenge can be as simple as knowing murder is wrong with full epistemic certainty, and keeping oneself from committing murder. But perhaps the more common variety of moral challenge we face consists of cases where we're really not sure, on the basis of any sort of a priori philosophizing, which is the right course to take. We need to think about each individual scenario in a case by case basis, think carefully about how best to act in each case (in contrast with already knowing what's the right course of action to take). This perpetual struggle is what constitutes moral training, and it's a result of this training that we cultivate maturity and virtuous character.
So what would really be reflective of Batman's ethical excellence would be for him to accurately analyze each individual situation he finds himself in, and solve it by whatever measure he deems justified, without getting carried away.
In the coming post- we'll conclude by considering one other (pseudo-)justification provided for him not killing the Joker. After that we'll consider why the fundamental premise of this entire discussion may have been wrong- and end on that note.
[To be concluded]