And how come Batman doesn’t dance anymore?

Remember the Batusi?

Okay, so most of this article has little to do with Batman and his dancing – although, it was disappointing to see that batman didn’t even try to dance in his latest film. What this is about is that I was browsing through the Uni Bookshop today and I happened across one of them ‘Philosophy of [insert contemporary American pop-culture entity].’ Usually I ignore them - not because I hate them with any sort of passion (like I hate that other class of books titled ‘The Science of [insert execrable contemporary Sci-fi/fantasy creation (e.g. Star Trek or Harry Potter)],’ which are just tomes of shameful, poisonous lies.) but just because I’m usually focused on other books. Anyways, I picked this one up because, as you’ve probably guessed by the title of this topic, it was called ‘The Philosophy of Batman.’

I thought this was a kinda interesting topic, and since we all agree that the latest Batman movie could be a new addition to – if not kick some of the old ones off – the list of ‘Wonders of the World’, then other people might also find it interesting.

Here’s some ideas to start the topic off. These are (roughly) taken off the back of the book.
1. Why doesn’t Batman just kill the joker to end all the mayhem?
2. Can the joker be held morally responsible for his actions?
3. Is Batman better than Superman?

I’m not sure what No.3 was about, but it was on there.

1. Because
2. Yes
3. No and Yes

1. Because that would make him a murderer.
2. Oh my yes.
3. NO!!! Batman is just some rich guy with expensive gadgets, a degree from the University of Life, a diploma from the School of Hard Knocks, and three gold stars from the Kindergarten of kicking ass. Superman has freaking powers, SUPER POWERS, SUPER POWERS!!!

Enough said

What??!?

You know exactly what.

Well. There is just no pleasing some people...

I don't know why I try...

1. The Batman doesn't like killing
2. Yes
3. Hell yes! Superman is an alien Nick. He's a big pussy compared to Mr. Wayne . Batman is so much better because he is just a human, Superman's ONLY weakness is a freaking green rock and he gets undone by it every damn time. Moron.

Ah, now I'll use some of the sub-questions the author guy used to open up the debate.

"Batman doesn't like the killing" and "That would make Batman a murderer"
There have been several texts devoted to these sorts of moral problems, and here are some basic outlines:
Is the 'passive' any more excusable than the 'active', in other words, Batman repeatedly puts the Joker away in the mental bin, only for him to inevitably escape later and perform more killings. Batman surely knows this will happen. Is he not, in some sense, partly responsible for the killings of the innocent people if it was well within his power to stop the Joker completely?
This sort of thing also occurs when he kills Liam Neeson in the first one: "I wont kill you, but I don't have to save you" sort of thing. Is there a difference?

I didn't get to read the Joker section, but I think it may have something to do with the Joker setting up those boats with explosives, and providing the ultimatum. But he wasn't going to be the one blowing up the boats. To what degree could he be held responsible? Were the people on the boats doing the exploding responsible at all?

Tom wrote:1. Because
2. Yes
3. No and Yes

I don't think you understand this section.

1. Why doesn’t Batman just kill the joker to end all the mayhem?
2. Can the joker be held morally responsible for his actions?
3. Is Batman better than Superman?

1. Because he's too awesome.
2. In NSW he probably wouldn't be. See the RSA thread.
3. Motherfucking God yes. Nick, Batman is so much more awesome because he is JUST a man, and WHERE DOES HE GET THOSE WONDERFUL TOYS!?
Also, Superman is adopted and nobody loves him.

Marc wrote:

Tom wrote:1. Because
2. Yes
3. No and Yes

I don't think you understand this section.

I understand just fine

Andrew.C wrote:Is the 'passive' any more excusable than the 'active', in other words, Batman repeatedly puts the Joker away in the mental bin, only for him to inevitably escape later and perform more killings. Batman surely knows this will happen. Is he not, in some sense, partly responsible for the killings of the innocent people if it was well within his power to stop the Joker completely?

I don't really think you can argue that he is responsible for killings post villains incarceration. He is a democratic hero. He believes in the justice system and that but he can't help that local correction facility officers are useless.

Andrew.C wrote:This sort of thing also occurs when he kills Liam Neeson in the first one: "I wont kill you, but I don't have to save you" sort of thing. Is there a difference?

I think there is.

Nick wrote:

Andrew.C wrote:This sort of thing also occurs when he kills Liam Neeson in the first one: "I wont kill you, but I don't have to save you" sort of thing. Is there a difference?

I think there is.

Sure Liam Neeson was going to kill all humans, but Batman, with help from Gordon, changed the situation then Baled (puns are fun), acting all innocent because he didn't directly kill him. C'MON!
It would have been different if a third party had created the situation and Batman was just looking out for himself.

Whatever, it made sense in my head.