Batman’s Worst (Daily) Ethical Decision
We loved the last two Batman movies, and we’re willing to bet this next one blows the first two away. Nolan’s redefinition of the Batman myth elevates the character from the camp of the Adam West series, the surrealism of the Tim Burton movies, and whatever pile of guano composed Batman and Robin, and places it firmly within the recognizable conventions of our modern world. But by doing so, Nolan forces us to consider Batman by the ethical standards of our modern world as well. While compelling, broody, and entertaining, Chris Nolan also demonstrates why a real life Batman is problematic. Surprisingly, placing Batman in the real world reveals a surprising truth which ruins Batman’s ethical foundation.
Being Batman is Bruce Wayne’s greatest ethical failure.
And no, we’re not referring to Batman’s failure to kill the Joker, his failure to save the second Robin, or his failure to avoid being directed by Joel Schumacher. Bruce Wayne makes his greatest ethical mistake every time he dons the cowl: his decision to be Batman is the worst ethical mistake he makes all day. Whatever his motivation, his being Batman fails to avenge those he lost, fails to protect those he seeks to defend, and completely ruins Bruce Wayne and others. In short, being Batman fails in every ethical category.
For the sake of argument, we’ll only focus on Chris Nolan’s Batman in this post. There are other versions of Batman which may avoid this condemnation, but for the sake of Batmite, the Batman of Zur-en-Arrh, the batsuit with nipples, and Calender Man, we’re going to treat Batman as seriously as possible.
First, being Batman serves no aspect of justice. According to Kantian ethics, one should pursue justice at all times, even if, according to Kant, “the world burns.” While the superheroes who supervise this blog affirm the need for justice, we fail to see what justice Batman upholds. Yes, he lost his parents, and would be entitled to some sort of justice if the state had failed to enact it. But the state did its job, and Wayne should be satisfied giving that up. And if Wayne would only be satisfied personally enacting justice, then he shouldn’t be out there fighting criminals who harm others; he should be inviting victims along with him to enact their own justice. His position is inconsistent. Moreover, his parents would not have desired him to avenge their deaths, and even if they did, they had no right to ask him to avenge anyone beyond themselves. Finally, his avenging of their deaths destroys their legacy. He destroys his father’s monorail, which was designed to allow the poor to get to work and to make Wayne Tower the official center of Gotham. His father was a doctor, while Batman causes injury and death. In short, Bruce Wayne fails the state, his parents, and his parents’ legacy by failing to preserve justice as Batman. He only exists to punish criminals, a task already assigned to a small part of our society know as the police and the justice system. And if those are broken, is justice done best by replacing them with a guy in a bat costume? Only if they can legitimately not handle the task, in which case Batman needs to empower the system to work, not serve in its place.
Of course, that is the deontological view, where we judge the action itself. But who can argue with results? After all, hasn’t Batman prevented Gotham’s destruction? So even if Batman were a failure in most regards, wouldn’t the simple act of saving the city just once justify Batman’s existence? Of course. But there is no way Bruce Wayne/Batman could have known about the threat to Gotham. Unless you follow the ethics of “do something just in case something completely unexpected might happen”, the decision to become Batman had nothing to do with saving the city. Based on Wayne’s knowledge, the League of Shadows and its ringleader were all dead. But Wayne could have predicted that dressing up and promoting vigilante justice would have encouraged others to do the same. In fact, Wayne’s goal was to out-crazy the criminal element of Gotham on order to scare them, and he discovered the hard way that criminals are difficult to out-crazy. Wayne could have predicted that acting insane could potentially draw even more individuals who love the crazy to Gotham. By doing what he does on a daily basis, Wayne draws all the most insane, discord loving elements of society to Gotham, making life hell for those Gothamites looking to live a normal life.
Not shown: sanity and restraint.
From: http://thebreakingtime.typepad.com/the_breaking_time/drugs/
And let’s not forget Bruce Wayne’s day occupation: owner of a $7 billion company. As a world leader in pharmaceuticals, military technology, aerospace, and materials sciences, decisions made by the owner of Wayne Industries directly affect the lives of its workers and those who use its products, particularly soldiers, cancer patients, and airline travelers, among others. In short, Wayne makes a positive difference in the lives of thousands just by going to work in the morning. A major incident involving the leadership of Wayne Industries puts all of those livelihoods in jeopardy, and its doesn’t help that its owner is running around at all hours of the night risking his life. And Wayne doesn’t go out of his way to share knowledge of the company. In fact, his antics as Batman encourage the people he needs for continuity to quit. And just as owners are liable for activities which they perform which damage the company, Wayne is responsible for what happen to his company, a company that does legitimate good, due to his dressing up as a giant bat.
Finally, there’s something to be said for honest, though misguided, attempts to do the right thing. Wayne may be making the wrong decision, and his choices may cause some immeasurable harm to society. But citizens are allowed to do so, even ethically. He can go skydiving out of his own airplane as much as he wants, even if his injury could potentially cause undo burden to others. But ethics change when encouraging others to do the same thing. So while there may be personal distaste at an adult learning to use deadly weapons while harboring what can only be described as a revenge oriented lifestyle, if that same adult were to encourage others to do the same, ethically multiple problems present themselves. While Nolan’s Batman has yet to encouraged anyone else to take up the cowl, internet speculation points to Joseph Gordan-Levitt’s character taking up the role of Batman. Meaning that instead of Batman making a bad personal choice day after day, he’s encouraging others to do the same. People of Gotham, you will never have a normal day ever again! Enjoy that move you’re undoubtedly planning!
Of course, this is what leads to the heart of Batman’s ethical failure: he doesn’t trust anyone but himself to take care of anything. His lack of faith in the justice system caused him to bring a gun to his parents’ killer’s hearing. That same lack of trust caused him to become Batman. His lack of faith in those who run his company means he doesn’t involve others in running it, and his faith in his own method of dealing with the ills of society causes him to raise up other vigilantes when he could be strengthening the bonds of society. And this is unfortunate, because trust, ultimately, can make the world better, while distrust erodes communities. To quote Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone:
Other things being equal, people you trust their fellow citizens volunteer more often, contribute more to charity, participate more often in politics and community organizations, serve more readily on juries, give blood more frequently, comply more fully with their tax obligations, are more tolerant of minority views, and display many other forms of civic virtue…In short, people who trust others are all-round good citizens, and those more engaged in community life are both more trusting and trustworthy.
We’d like to hold up Batman against another hero, Spiderman. The great moment in the latest Spiderman movie comes when, in order to help, ordinary citizens come together to enable Peter Parker to reach the scene of an unfolding disaster together. Spiderman doesn’t just believe in himself, he believes in us, too. Batman believes only in himself, and will, alas, be left with nothing but that in the end. And alone, left with nothing but his own attempt at justice, will ultimately show that no justice can be achieved in this manner. At least, we think. And we’ll be in line Friday to find out!
We’re looking forward to this and other ethical challenges in The Dark Knight Rises, and will comment on those next week, after we’ve seen the movie. Enjoy, true believers!
you see batman is a hero without superpowers…..there aint no reason for any ethical reason to Bruce Wayne becoming batman……and moreover he fights without a gun against those who are heavily armed………n if you are talking about something ethical then you should remember the Dark Knight where he took the responsibility of what Harvey Dent did…..this is what separates him from evryone else…and in The Dark Knight Rises when he escaped the pit he could have gone to somewhere else but he decided to come back and fight……….so there is no need to criticize THE BATMAN….He is the best superhero ever….
“and moreover he fights without a gun against those who are heavily armed”
Actually he fights with multiple machine guns, missile launchers, etc against much less heavily armed enemies. He brings more firepower to some of his fights than the Punisher does.
I really do appreciate this particular analysis of Batman – more so, because it sticks to the Nolan movies, and thus, engages with it as reality.
However, in its overzealousness to be critical and credible, this piece forgets one very important thing: that Batman isn’t a symbol of perfection.
“There’s no going back…You’ve changed things, forever.”
Remember the Joker’s lines in TDK? What these lines signify are the moral and ethical conundrums that Batman faces in his everyday reality. And this theme, of hero-vigilante is a constant trope which authors have examined in a lot of Batman texts, including the comic books, as well as Nolan’s movies.
Bruce is human. He’s not endowed with superpowers like Superman, nor does he possess any mutant powers like Spider-man. He spent a major part of his life training himself to be a far superior man – physically and mentally. Yes, his choice to work outside the law is definitely an ethically flawed one; but this struggle is what makes Batman a unique character – the idea that when structures become shackles, there’s a need to step out, to do the right thing – even if it means being public enemy number one. And this is something he deals with, every time he wears the cowl.
And he has inspired good: bent cops running scared, and good cops like Jim Gordon being able to use the law, instead of bending it – is a difference. True, Nolan deals with the theme of escalation as well. But, as the author said, this is looking at the Batman mythos in the real world.
And I think it’s too far-fetched to assume that Batman deals heavy handed justice. One reason why he took to being a costumed vigilante, is because he could use the symbol and the resources to do something which the cops and judges couldn’t; and hence, is the significance of his alliance with Dent and Gordon.
And the Batman attracting crazies to Gotham is one of the best ideas that writers could have used. It complicates his existence and thus, makes the Dark Knight a much deeper, textured character as opposed to many of his peers.
Well, “sticks to reality” is a bit of a stretch, but I agree with you for the most part.
I think my primary disagreement stems from your argument that being Batman is the only way Bruce Wayne could step outside his corrupt system and be a symbol. To which I can only say, hogwash. Even in Nolan’s universe, there are two individuals who stood as symbols against corruption without becoming costumed vigilantes: Bruce’s father and Harvey Dent. One can be a symbol without becoming a costumed vigilante, especially if one is the CEO of a major corporation with major sway in the community. Becoming a symbol has power, and thus should be used very precisely.
As for Batman being a great character- agreed. But an ethical one? Nope.
well talking about the BATMAN he is the greatest superhero ever
most selfless person
only thinks about his city “GOTHAM”
talking about the nolan series
he took all the blame of death of 2 cops and harvey dent just for the heck of it
only because of people of gaotham
n after watching TDKR its sure that he is the most reliable super hero ever
as alfred says “why do we fall sir,to pic ourselves up”
Im sorry but if your using Nolans batman its clear you nvr watched it properly. First off from the first film Rachel changed Bruce from a path of vengeance so what he is doing now has nothing to do with avenging the death of his parents, second he has the money to rebuild the train, third he is removing the need for everyones personal vengeance by becoming a symbol ppl can rely on instead of doing something stupid, its nt perfect as ppl still want to follow him but even doing good has consequences, next about him risking his life, from movie one all the way through 3 he has nvr been running Wayne Industries actively, he left Fox to run it for the very reason you stated, businesses as large as his dont need the guy with the name to run it especially since its now publicly owned (in the Nolan continuity which this argument is based). As for causing “death” batman doesnt cause death any more than a doctor, any surgeon going in to operate knows there is always the chance the patient will die, what matters is that batman fights to prevent it, lastly using text book definition about ethics are useless, first off because the character doesnt give a shit about anyones personal definitions, and because batman nvr claimed to be ethical, he just has one rule, no killing, so while your argument seems to be well thoughtout every aspect of you premise was wrong to begin with. Next time pay attention before you do this.
Actually, Wayne has a controlling stake in Wayne Enterprises, as he owns the majority of it at the end of the first movie, making him the de facto owner. But hey, I could be wrong, I am the one who “nvr watched it properly”. : )
Batman may not be ethical but he makes ethical decisions. If you pay attention to the movie ethics has everything to do with the decision of doing what’s right and what’s wrong. All of his intention is correct therefore they were a great ethical decision. Just because it did not turn out the way the city of Gotham expected, doesn’t mean it was wrong. An example would be when taped into the citizen’s phone. He used it for one purpose and one purpose only that was to find a location on the Joker. He did not use it for personal matters, so no one can say it was a privacy issue. He used it for what he was looking for and that’s it. Another thing, the destruction done to the property when he comes out at night. If the city of Gotham was doing their job in the day time, then he would not have to fight danger late at night. Example: The bank robbery, if the swat would have been so anxious to shoot the Joker and his accomplish just like they were going to do the innocent victims in the window of the building then he wouldn’t have to. Think about the number of lives he saved instead of cost of damages. The Joker found a loophole that the citizens could not catch. That is why Batman wants the citizens of Gotham to “rise”. He makes plenty of ethical choices only because the future depends on it. So if you pay more attention you will realize that this movie has plenty of ethics…in fact every character has it
See my above comment.
Also, why are you only referencing the action scenes of one movie? Trust me, its very rewarding to watch the whole movie, don’t simply fast forward through the parts you find boring.
It’s delightful to see such passion and loyalty among fans! I hope you all likewise display such passion and loyalty towards your family and communities, as that would mean the world is truly a great place.
I appreciate your love for Batman and I admit I share that love and buy comics featuring him and his cohorts (btw, you should, too. http://www.fantomcomics.com/comic-book-reservation-service/). But, as many of you have agreed, he is not an ethical character. Ethics is not simply a right/wrong act: it is the statement that, under a similar set of circumstances, everyone should act in a similar way. When I go to the store, it is ethical for me to pick out the things I need and buy them, but it is not ethical for me to make a salad or go to sleep at the same store, even if it is legal. If you think what Batman is doing is ethical, you are saying everyone who loses their parents and lives in a violent city should dress as an animal and fight crime: which is absurd, especially when one is the CEO of a major corporation. If you disagree, make an intelligent argument as to why he should do so.
By the way, if you didn’t want to talk ethics, why are you on a blog about ethics in the first place?