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.

Nick wrote: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.

But c'mon, the Joker is the king bad ass. He has all the crazy peoples in the city to break him free, and Batman knows this. Batman also is aware of the incompetence of the officers. You sure he is not in some part responsible?

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.

Alex wrote:Whatever, it made sense in my head.

I think you've both been mesmerised by Bale's 'pure physique'. What about those thought experiments that involve you on a train, in the drivers compartment, and the train is speeding. You see on the track ahead of you a group of workers who are trapped on the track/can't hear you (whatever), and the train will soon hit them and kill them. There is also another track that diverts off from your current track. There's only one guy stuck on that track (for some reason). You can actively press the switch dealie to change tracks and 'actively' be responsible for turning the train to kill the one dude, or just let the train run its course and kill the group of people. Also the breaks don't work.
I'm not sure if this applies, but it does kinda confuse the issue of the 'active', 'passive' split.

It is kinda different since Neeson was totally bad (or was he?). But I thought Batdude didn't care if people were bad... (du du daaaa)

Andrew.C wrote:But c'mon, the Joker is the king bad ass. He has all the crazy peoples in the city to break him free, and Batman knows this. Batman also is aware of the incompetence of the officers. You sure he is not in some part responsible?

No he's not, I am very sure.

Andrew.C wrote:What about those thought experiments that involve you on a train, in the drivers compartment, and the train is speeding. You see on the track ahead of you a group of workers who are trapped on the track/can't hear you (whatever), and the train will soon hit them and kill them. There is also another track that diverts off from your current track. There's only one guy stuck on that track (for some reason). You can actively press the switch dealie to change tracks and 'actively' be responsible for turning the train to kill the one dude, or just let the train run its course and kill the group of people. Also the breaks don't work.
I'm not sure if this applies, but it does kinda confuse the issue of the 'active', 'passive' split.

I think you have gone a bit off topic on this one. This is about choosing for the greater good but I would just like to corect it a little because the choice at the moment is obvious. The only one guy side is supposed to be related to you, a son is the one I hear most, basically it's a choice between like 10 strangers or your son.

Nick wrote:No he's not, I am very sure.

Thumbs down. Thumbs down!

Nick wrote:I think you have gone a bit off topic on this one. This is about choosing for the greater good but I would just like to corect it a little because the choice at the moment is obvious. The only one guy side is supposed to be related to you, a son is the one I hear most, basically it's a choice between like 10 strangers or your son.

I don't know, I think it was apt. The greater good? Batman should be a raging whirlwind of murderous stabbings if it was for the greater good; as long as he stuck to killing the bad dudes, which he almost certainly would.
The thought experiment stands as is, no editing. Yes there is the relationship one, but I fail to see how the lack of the relationship in this one makes the choice "obvious". Please explain.

I gots to go to bed now (test in morning), but I be back at lunch time tomorrow.

Andy wrote:Batman should be a raging whirlwind of murderous stabbings if it was for the greater good; as long as he stuck to killing the bad dudes.

I wholeheatedly agree with this statement. I think that all law enforcers should have the right to not only decide who the 'bad dudes' are, but also judge them and carry out said judgement. ESPECIALLY self-appointed law enforcers, like the batman.

It's a good thing that the batsuit comes equipped with paradox absorbing crumple zones, because otherwise a whirlwind of judgemental murderous stabbings might make him stop and think...

Wait, what are we even talking about now? I don't deny that allowing an individual free-reign over the judgement and sentencing (a.k.a stabbing) of criminals would not work in real life, but this is Batman. In fact, it's only because noone in real life (we assume) is nearly as cool as Batman; if they were, then I would think about allowing them that status. This is because we all know Batman has the skillz to pick out those who are evil (possibly because anyone in these fictional cities who decides to be evil goes about it by either becoming an over-extending hyper-master-criminal bent on nothing less than total and absolute citywide nihilistic mayhem, or to become a henchman to one of these aforementioned SuperVillains and exhibit no attempt to hide this fact by shambling around in large bands of like minded mini-criminals clad in uniforms emblazened with the emblem of their favourite baddie commiting constant crimes in a futile attempt to outdo each others clan, futile since we all know that this was perfected by the 'FootClan' from TMNJ. So I don't think it's too hard for Batman to spot the bad-dudes.

So my point was that assuming Batman can spot exactly who the bad dudes are, is he not in any way responsible if he doesn't do all he can to stop those bad dudes? Especially if those bad dudes happen to be superevil.

What if I try to be as cool as Batman?
I am all for vigilante justice in this shit hole of a society.

Will you all support me in this endeavor and give advice?
I'll also need someone to make cool shit.

Trizender wrote:I'll also need someone to make cool shit.

Ah, for that you need a token black scientist.

1. Batman chooses not to put himself in God's shoes- in which he believes that the taking of human life is wrong, which is why he works to incarcerate the villains. but i don't think he knows the villains will escape, in fact there are several who get locked up and stay that way for good (read the damn comics your own damn selves!).

2. Yes. no one is forcing him to do stuff, he is choosing to hurt/kill/mess with people. i understand that he may have a mental disorder, which is why he is afforded leniency by the state (put in Arkham Asylum rather than general prison, or executed). Yes, from just the movie i would say he's responsible for his actions, should be restrained and pitied... like a fool.

3. Batman does in fact kill Superman (in the apocalypse series), so some would say he is in the way that Darth Vader is better than the emperor, Kerrigan is better than everyone, I am better than crevu and Rock beats scissors.

Glenjamin wrote:1. Batman chooses not to put himself in God's shoes- in which he believes that the taking of human life is wrong, which is why he works to incarcerate the villains. but i don't think he knows the villains will escape, in fact there are several who get locked up and stay that way for good (read the damn comics your own damn selves!).

Does God wear shoes?
And if so, could God make a pair of shoes so heavy that he could not walk in them?

Trizender wrote:Will you all support me in this endeavor and give advice?

Yes, I will. But mainly in the way that people support and give advice to their favourite sporting club: "Go, Trev, woo wooo. Go, Trev, woo wooo," and after you've gone and tried to apprehend someone, and screw it up, I can be all like "Yeah, that really wasn't the best move. What he should have done was gone in with the arm twist then the pin-down." And so forth. All from the comfort of my armchair.

Trev wrote:I'll also need someone to make cool shit.

Well, I don't know about cool shit. If you give me sacks of money, then I'll give it my best shot... apart from that I could, ummm, lend you my backpack? It's black! It can totally blend in with your get-up. Also I can make you sandwiches for your lunch.