Batman Begins "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

[Ronny Shade]

Nobody dies under Batman's watch. He cherishes life more than most people.

Well said.

In my experience, Batman always saves the villain. The villain could have a shattered jaw and two broken legs and then go to jail after that, but Batman doesn't like people dying.

He suffered through the deaths of people close to him. He doesn't want anybody else to have to do that. And no matter what or who you are, everybody has loved ones.

 

[iceberg325]

If that's true then we have a killer Batman. 'Killer' being in a good way - if that's possible - since that way he would be 'liberating' Ra's from his mission.

From that POV Batman should 'liberate' every criminal from being a criminal by killing them. Then I don't get why he refused to save that thief at ra's monastery. He could have "stop him from doing what he felt had to be done."

And from that very perspective too, Ra's is totally justified as wanting to destroy both Batman and Gotham since from his point of view, they're doing terrible things; being corrupt and defending the city that is being corrupt respectively.



Yes, Batman had to save him according to what B Begins ells us about Batman and his will of not taking human lives. And no, I don't think being Batman is a choice anymore.

it's not like he can quit any night. Just say, 'meh, I don't feel like being Batman anymore.' He's obssessed with his mission, it's not something he chose to do but a necessity that he can't avoid.



Certainly.



Because it is one of his main morals according to the movie.



Funny because Ra's himself told that same thing to Bruce.

So you're saying he should learn Ra's philosophies about compasion. By thinking the way you do, Batman is a little more Ra's at the end of the movie since he learnt Ra's morals.



Certainly.

Some other villiians kill people or steal, etc. Where is supposed to be the line where Batman can allow himself to let people die?



Under that perspective he shopuld kill every villiain since every one of them can escape (and we know that happens a lot).

Right thing or not, Batman did what he said he wouldn't do.



What we - guys - would do or not do it's irrelevant since we're not Batman.

In ras case, it was differnet. They were on a speeding train. Maybe it wasnt even possible for Batman to save him. Whos knows. Im not saying he should let every villian die. If he fights one, detains him, take him to jail for sure. In the case of a speeding train headed for Wayne tower, he should risk his life for someone who will only try to kill him again and again? Honestly, I wouldnt save someone like that. If Ras were hanging off of a building, pull him up, save his life then. On a speeding train, I dont think it would be smart for batman to save someone like Ras.

 

[Mister J]

Ra's has already committed his life toward his endeavor on the train. When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

It's a sticking point, but I didn't view Batman as being responsible for Ra's (apparant) death. Ra's didn't plan on surviving and Batman left him to the peril that he created. If Batman helped to create the danger that claimed a life (which is how negligent [or even reckless] homicide results) then he'd be obligated to save him. Batman chose to not substitute his own judgment for Ra's choice of what to do with his life, while eliminating (or minimizing) the effect on anyone else.

 

[iceberg325]

Ra's has already committed his life toward his endeavor on the train. When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

It's a sticking point, but I didn't view Batman as being responsible for Ra's (apparant) death. Ra's didn't plan on surviving and Batman left him to the peril that he created. If Batman helped to create the danger that claimed a life (which is how negligent [or even reckless] homicide results) then he'd be obligated to save him. Batman chose to not substitute his own judgment for Ra's choice of what to do with his life, while eliminating (or minimizing) the effect on anyone else.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, good point. Oh by the way, GO MIAMI!!! The game was great last night.

 

[El Payaso]

In ras case, it was differnet. They were on a speeding train. Maybe it wasnt even possible for Batman to save him.

Batman could have saved him in the same amount of time he used to say 'I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.'

Whos knows.

The mere fact he said that reveals he didn't have the intemntion of saving him. that how we can know.

In the case of a speeding train headed for Wayne tower, he should risk his life for someone who will only try to kill him again and again?

Yes, because according to the movie he thinks justice is more than death.

Honestly, I wouldnt save someone like that.

You're not Batman.

Most of us if we have lost our parents in a street assault wouldn't become Batman for a starter.

If Ras were hanging off of a building, pull him up, save his life then. On a speeding train, I dont think it would be smart for batman to save someone like Ras.

Batman doesn't do what he do and doesn't decide what he decides in order to be smart.

 

[El Payaso]

Ra's has already committed his life toward his endeavor on the train. When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

It's a sticking point, but I didn't view Batman as being responsible for Ra's (apparant) death. Ra's didn't plan on surviving and Batman left him to the peril that he created. If Batman helped to create the danger that claimed a life (which is how negligent [or even reckless] homicide results) then he'd be obligated to save him. Batman chose to not substitute his own judgment for Ra's choice of what to do with his life, while eliminating (or minimizing) the effect on anyone else.

What you say makes Ra's a suicide.

For the third time in this thread I ask, does that mean that Batman shouldn't help a suicide?

If I'm trying to throw myself off a building and Batman is there he just let me go because it is my decision?

 

[Ronny Shade]

Ra's has already committed his life toward his endeavor on the train. When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

It's a sticking point, but I didn't view Batman as being responsible for Ra's (apparant) death. Ra's didn't plan on surviving and Batman left him to the peril that he created. If Batman helped to create the danger that claimed a life (which is how negligent [or even reckless] homicide results) then he'd be obligated to save him. Batman chose to not substitute his own judgment for Ra's choice of what to do with his life, while eliminating (or minimizing) the effect on anyone else.

I like the qualifier.

I didn't understand why Ra's had the whole "My fate lies with the rest of Gotham" philosophy. It didn't seem like him. He seems like the kind of guy to want to stay alive to continue his war on crime/corruption. That makes me think he wasn't planing on dying. Either he was planning on faking his death, or he was planning on dying temporarily, or he was planning on getting off the train.

 

[Mister J]

What you say makes Ra's a suicide.

For the third time in this thread I ask, does that mean that Batman shouldn't help a suicide?

If I'm trying to throw myself off a building and Batman is there he just let me go because it is my decision?

The random suicide case may be some distressed person who doesn't realize the full extent of their actions. There are a number of variables there. Batman already knows Ra's to be a more than competent individual, who is quite capable of making his own decisions and who has a strong resolve. It's not remotely the same situation.

Batman is about ensuring that the senseless and random violence that took the life of his parents doesn't extend to anyone else. I've never interpreted his role as telling people what to do with their lives, unless it relates to some criminal activity.

Would he attempt to save a random stranger from throwing themselves off a building. Yes? Even that's a dicey scenario (interfering with one's self-determination), but I imagine Batman would harbor an optimistic view and choose to believe that the stranger was capable of valuing life and making some sort of new committment to living. He already knew Ra's to be above that approach.

 

[Mister J]

I like the qualifier.

I didn't understand why Ra's had the whole "My fate lies with the rest of Gotham" philosophy. It didn't seem like him. He seems like the kind of guy to want to stay alive to continue his war on crime/corruption. That makes me think he wasn't planing on dying. Either he was planning on faking his death, or he was planning on dying temporarily, or he was planning on getting off the train.

It does seem like a guy as smart as Ra's would be able to ensure that the train collided with Wayne Tower without remaining on it to the end. Even if he wanted to see it through himself, you figure he'd have an escape route so he could continue his own efforts to "save the world".

 

[Ronny Shade]

right. It's not like Gotham was the only evil that needed to be destroyed

 

[Image]

Actually, I was watching the movie yesterday and I thought about that scene. Batman doesn't kill, but he would allow him to die, when he could have saved him. In a way it is killing him when you have the opportunity to save someone and your choice is the result of what decision was made. Then again is it? If Ra's didn't do what he wanted, he wouldn't haven't been this predicament. So did he kill himself? Also is he really dead? You know how villains are thought to be dead do to an occurance, but then they're not.

 

[Ronny Shade]

The fact that Ra's isn't actually dead doesn't change the impact of Batman's decision not to save him.

 

[El Payaso]

The fact that Ra's isn't actually dead doesn't change the impact of Batman's decision not to save him.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[iceberg325]

Batman could have saved him in the same amount of time he used to say 'I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.'



The mere fact he said that reveals he didn't have the intemntion of saving him. that how we can know.



Yes, because according to the movie he thinks justice is more than death.



You're not Batman.

Most of us if we have lost our parents in a street assault wouldn't become Batman for a starter.



Batman doesn't do what he do and doesn't decide what he decides in order to be smart.

Yes according to the movie he thinks justice is more than death, but according to the movie he felt it was right to let Ras die.

 

[Image]

The fact that Ra's isn't actually dead doesn't change the impact of Batman's decision not to save him.

Was that directed towards my post. I agree with what you say, but I was asking do you(everyone)think Ra's is actually dead? To possibly be in future Bat films if ever made. It was an off topic question.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I think Ra's will return, yes.

 

[El Payaso]

Yes according to the movie he thinks justice is more than death, but according to the movie he felt it was right to let Ras die.

And thus, the contradiction ad the statement that it was out of the character.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I'm with Payaso on this one.


We're also the only two people alive who like DK2

 

[Bat Attack]

I'm with Payaso on this one.

Same here.

 

[Everyman]

What? Letting the villiain die? How is this more in Batman character than anything else - like taking the villiain to justice?

Letting the villain ina dangerous situation (but not a situation in which the resourceful Rha's couldn't get through) while he was busy saving the whole city is very in character I think, since Batman couldn't do two things at once. In medieval literature (Hell, in any kinds of fiction), it is a usual dilemma for the hero: having to follow two oaths that contradict each other in a precise situation. The hero has then to choose the most important of these oaths, and compromise on the other, while trying to keep it as much as it is humanly possible. Batman swore to protect the people of Gotham City, and he swore not to take any life, even the lives of worthless criminals. To save the people of Gotham and keep his word, he had to leave Rha's Al Ghul in a very difficult situation, because the most important of his duty was to save the lives of many, who were defenseless, something his former mentor was not. I said it and I will say it again, Batman did not actively try to kill Rha's Al Ghul and he did not even left him in a situation where he was doomed. And taking him to justice was impossible if Batman wanted to save his city.

Anyway, all your argument stands on the presumption that Batman could have saved Rha's al Ghul, but I think they meant the situation to be Cornelian. Wether they succeeded or not is debatable, but to assume that Batman had malicious intends is presumptuous.

 

[Everyman]

Batman could have saved him in the same amount of time he used to say 'I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.'

The mere fact he said that reveals he didn't have the intemntion of saving him. that how we can know.

No, that's simply dramatic licence, it happens all the time in fiction. It was also a quick explanation to Rha's Al Ghul that he was not betraying his beliefs. It doesn't change the fact that Batman, to save the people of Gotham, had to let Rha's Al Ghul to his possible but not unavoidable death.

 

[Ronny Shade]

yeah, but he didn't leave the train because he needed to rescue everyone, he left the train because he didn't want to die in a giant firey explosion.

 

[Everyman]

yeah, but he didn't leave the train because he needed to rescue everyone, he left the train because he didn't want to die in a giant firey explosion.

Well, I will have to watch that scene again, but I always thought that Rha's had to be left powerless in order to stop the train. As I said, wether they succeeded or not into making Batman's dilemma a real one is debatable, but I think the intend was there.

 

[Ronny Shade]

not sure what you're saying. Batman boarded the train to make sure it kept going so it would crash and destroy the microwave emitter when Gordon blew the supports of the bridge. He leaves the train so he doesn't crash with it.

 

[Everyman]

not sure what you're saying. Batman boarded the train to make sure it kept going so it would crash and destroy the microwave emitter when Gordon blew the supports of the bridge. He leaves the train so he doesn't crash with it.

I haven't watch that scene in ages, my memory is imperfect. Maybe there was a risk of letting Rha's in the train, that it might reach it's target after all. Or maybe Batman didn't want to die in the train fighting a man like Rha's, whio could escape the crash by himself. By saying "I won,t kill you", etc., maybe Batman is saying "I am leaving, your plan failed, you get out of your own mess". In which case, the scene isn't as intelligent as I remembered (I hope you can still explain it with a Cornelian choice, because it's such a great plot device), but it is certainly useful. Rha's al Ghul I think survived, he had to apparently die an ambiguous enough death to leave Batman for a while and come back in a sequel.