The Batman’s existence is responsible for escalation, were he to kill the joker things could get rough!
Batman is the disease and the cure?
So you think Batman fears he won’t be able to keep himself from murdering innocent civilians if he ever killed The Joker? Batman is more self-disciplined than that.
No, batman is a positive symptom, though a symptom nevertheless. He wishes to inspire goodness, i.e. replicate his own self as a symptom, and the joker wishes to do the same. It’s why he tries to bring out the worst in people with his little prisoner’s dilemma scenarios.
I’d like to think Batman is shrewd enough not to make a spectacle out of it.
A mirror with nothing in it is just a piece of glass.
I’m not convinced, Tab.
Batman’s decision not to kill is because he is principled. He has rules. He doesn’t kill. It’s not because he’s afraid if he ever crosses that threshold that he won’t be able to stop. It’s not because he feels it would become necessary for him to kill himself. It’s simply because it’s a rule. The questions to be asked here are these:
- Does Batman value his principle more than the lives of countless people that would invariably be killed by the monsters he helps create in the first place?
- And if he does, should we still think of him as a hero?
I think the point is that:
- An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
- There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Too zen…?
Okay. I work on machines. One particular machine is very big. It has in particular one outsize bolt. Huge. Luckily in the toolbox I carry (with difficulty, because this wrench is verrry heavy) an equally outsize wrench to cope.
That machine needs attention sporadically, might be today, might be tomorrow. So I have to carry this bloody wrench around with me allll the damn time.
But think, when that machine finally becomes obscelete, goes to the great engineering works in the sky, I can throw that damn wrench away, and walk lightly.
Because the existance of the one, justifies the continued presence of the other.
It’s not that complicated. Anyone who harms another in self-defense or in the defense of others, does not then become evil. Harming someone who you have neutralized and are capable of turning over for the administration of justice is another story. But the real gray area was Batman’s dilemma at the end–should he let the Joker die as the result of events the Joker brought on his own head?
There are few worse examples of evil than those like the Joker who have no motivation other than the promotion of evil and chaos. I’d have yelled “adios m**********r”, but that’s just me. Since he was a total admitted recidivist, there would be nothing gained by saving him and a lot more tribulation to loose.
The Joker, like the symbolic representative of evil, the Devil, must occasionally tell the Truth to keep those who value Truth off balance. Thus: “You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won’t kill you because you’re just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.” (His sense of self-righteousness is misplaced.)
At other times, he reveals his own strategy, one that benefits evil and undermines good order: “The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules!”
That’s why we must have one simple universal definition of evil, otherwise we’re wide open to manipulation. Fortunately there is one.
Tab,
Bruce Wayne would gladly give up being Batman. I think this is made explicit in the films. He’s doing the Batman gig as a way to inspire goodness and outspire[?] apathy. By the end of the second film he sees that the day when he becomes unnecessary won’t ever come, because he’s inspired, created, something entirely different from what he wanted, something he must deal with because he is and feels responsible.
But, supposing even that Batman doesn’t kill the Joker because the Joker’s existence justifies Batman’s, what does that mean for Batman? Is he still a hero? I ask because it seems to me that if what you say is right, then that means faced with the choice, Batman would rather keep on being Batman by not killing the Joker, than save the lives of innocents by killing the Joker.
ps. whats an antonym for “inspire”?
whats an antonym for “inspire”?
discourage
“He’s doing the Batman gig as a way to inspire goodness and discourage apathy.”
I don’t know, Felix. It doesn’t feel right.
“Confound” perhaps, or ‘banish’.
I think the trouble with that sentence is that we’re used to seeing opposites in that structure and goodness and apathy aren’t. ’ Moral apathy’ would be better maybe. ‘Discourage’ would work with that, apathy alone is too physical.
Anyway. Back to the Bat.
Let’s not get into debates of dubiousity regarding the nature of good and evil and heroism. All too subjective. It’s a case of yes, I know what they are, you know what they are, but that doesn’t necessarily mean our ideas are the same, or that there is any ‘rightness’ to be found in either.
And who exactly banishes more moral apathy…? Seems to me that having batman on the streets is just another reason for Joe the Plumber to go back to sleep. The Joker and his philosophic pranks however, they do engender some thought - those people on the ship for example, that didn’t push the button, from pure squeamishness it seemed to me - I’d have punched that button without a seconds thought - I’ll bet their moral apathy has been seriously banished.
A vigilante is nothing new. Batman’s just another cipher for rich-boy techno-fetishistic capitalism’s iron fist, though he does possess the decency of heart to be mildly fucked-up about it. The Joker’s the grit in the wounds of the world, an agitant, irrintant provacateur. Something new, or the potential for such at least.
Saving innocent lives…? Batman…? Oh sure, I’ve heard in the next Miller epic Bats is off to Gaza to whup Zionist ass.
Finally, it’s here!
Tab,
How did we manage to transform The Joker into the hero? I tell you how: We did it by making him an enemy worthy of our attention. By making him the other which defines us. And by making batman a warrior who fights the war for us somewhere far away, we conclude that he’s really only taking the responsibility away from us, and thus lulling us into a state of apathy. I guess that works, in a sophistic way. But I don’t buy it! One could just as easy work the ‘abyss becomes you’ narrative to conclude that by playing the Joker’s game we invariably lose, and really, when you look closely, you see that the goal of the Joker is not to be an enemy. He’s not looking to destroy us. He wants to liberate people of their moral restraints. He’s a liberator! And if the Joker is a liberator, then that makes Batman…fuck. Scratch that.
They both use fear to get the reaction they want out of people. Joker uses fear to get people to abandon rules, principles, and all such moral restraints made impersonal through tradition. He’s, basically, an egoist fighting against rule egoism. He wants people to asses each situation individually, and then act in the manner that will benefit one best; not consider whether acting in such a way will violate some core principle, because core principles often times get in the way of personal satisfaction.
Batman uses fear to get egoists, i.e., people who act in whatever manner they seem fit to advance their self-interest, to adopt some moral rules, i.e., consideration for the welfare of others. He wants people who have no moral restraint, who’s only consideration before they act is their own selves, to adapt some rules which take others and society into consideration. This means sacrificing some degree of personal satisfaction whenever it helps society.
Listen, I know freedom and liberty sound cool. You pay a lot of money for cheap cologne because you hear it’ll somehow set you free. But freedom really isn’t that pleasant when you think about it. There’s alot of crazy people out there, and they need to be in chains. Without chains, these people will make your life nasty, brutish, and short.
Because we live in the now, we can’t know any truth. So everything we say is a lie to some degree or another.
Newton’s physics is a lie. But if I’m trying to build a bridge, it’s a lie worth telling!
And there’s me thinking you were an anarchist Xzc. Careful, they’ll throw you out of ILO. 
I guess the beef I have with superheros is the whole - “superheroes save people” schtick. No they don’t - they cause untold damage and woe to any city they inhabit, because they are larger than life and our cities are not built to withstand them. It’s like an adult trying to jam his butt into a kid’s schoolchair. At best, his bum gets stuck and at worst, it collapses, producing tearful children.
Watch any superhero movie and notice… Who does the most damage…?
Criminal X, in a world without superheroes gets by on the odd heist and phishing scam. Okay, people lose their savings and the cops get their arses run ragged catching them. But then add superhero Y, and anti-superhero Emo Z and suddenly, feeding off each others’ actions, the whole fucking city gets levelled.
Sorry, but if Superman or Batman appeared in my city, I’d move.
In “here” you said:
Totalitarian methods? He operated within the law in spite of the phony claim that he’s a vigilante. Vigilante’s make their own law, Batman merely enforces existing law which is every citizen’s right, and even responsibility. And by refusing to kill even in self-defense, or even to let (the Joker) die, he abets chaos. Those who promote chaos by trespassing on the rule of law that protects the equal rights of all, forfeit their rights, even their right to liberty and if necessary, their life.
I disagree with this in the strongest terms:
That’s not following the creative impulse, it’s perpetuating a lie–aka devaluing/avoiding the Truth. It’s equivalent to saying that setting the Joker free is what needs to happen. Truth is the only antidote for the rule of chaos, and the only path for promoting the rule of law. Even white lies undermine society because they enable self-deception.
As I said in the IP, Batman is wrong, Alfred is right, and the ending only shows that Batman still doesn’t/refuses to understand what he’s up against–preferring instead to follow the lie while employing an attitude that borders on self-pity.
We define ourselves by evil only if we choose to do evil, not by another’s example of evil no matter how pure it might be. Nor are we defined by another’s example of good. They only present us with our choices.
Psychobabble 101. Just because we live in the now doesn’t negate what we’ve learned in the past. We carry it with us. If not we’d merely be a blob against a tree slobbering on ourselves and unable to reproduce. Perhaps you know someone like that.
There’s no psychobable. I’m just using the terms I started out with. The fact is everything we “know” is clouded with uncertainty, and in that uncertainty there’s the possibility for errors that, when implemented, could have consequences that are worse than would have occurred operating under a more simplistic idea, even if you know it’s incorrect.
This is a very simple idea. That you have to box it up as psychobable to deal with it just because of the language you first saw tells me all I need to know about you.
What if our technology ends up destroying the planet? What good is all out “truths” then? Better to live under the lies of the past!