Should Batman just Kill the Joker ?

[Dark Guardian]

Batman fans have no problem with him erring. You can be human and err without killing people.

Exactly.
Part of what I, personally, as a fan of Batman's ideology, want to believe is that we as human beings can hold fast to certain ideals we choose for ourselves. It's not that we're perfect, it's not that he's perfect. But I want to believe, as Batman does, that human beings have the capacity to look at themselves and say "I will not cross this line." He (we) may err in other parts of his life. He may make mistakes. But in this chosen area, he shows his dedication to not making this one mistake that he will not allow himself to make.
It is not a testament to his perfection, but his strength, that he continues to uphold this standard.

 

[SlamAdams]

Exactly.
Part of what I, personally, as a fan of Batman's ideology, want to believe is that we as human beings can hold fast to certain ideals we choose for ourselves. It's not that we're perfect, it's not that he's perfect. But I want to believe, as Batman does, that human beings have the capacity to look at themselves and say "I will not cross this line." He (we) may err in other parts of his life. He may make mistakes. But in this chosen area, he shows his dedication to not making this one mistake that he will not allow himself to make.
It is not a testament to his perfection, but his strength, that he continues to uphold this standard.

I'm not saying Batman HAS to kill. I'm saying as a rule, saying its impossible, seems dumb to me. You have a breaking point. You do. It is improbable that you will ever face it or have it challenged, but you have one. Batman has his challenged constantly. To not even consider or entertain the notion that he might one day cross the line doesn't make sense.

 

[The Joker]

Exactly.
Part of what I, personally, as a fan of Batman's ideology, want to believe is that we as human beings can hold fast to certain ideals we choose for ourselves. It's not that we're perfect, it's not that he's perfect. But I want to believe, as Batman does, that human beings have the capacity to look at themselves and say "I will not cross this line." He (we) may err in other parts of his life. He may make mistakes. But in this chosen area, he shows his dedication to not making this one mistake that he will not allow himself to make.
It is not a testament to his perfection, but his strength, that he continues to uphold this standard.

Bravo. Well said

 

[Dark Guardian]

I'm not saying Batman HAS to kill. I'm saying as a rule, saying its impossible, seems dumb to me. You have a breaking point. You do. It is improbable that you will ever face it or have it challenged, but you have one. Batman has his challenged constantly. To not even consider or entertain the notion that he might one day cross the line doesn't make sense.

To assume that is to deny Batman's quest to become the best version of a human being he can be. And it all comes down to your seeming unwillingness to see human beings be more than they are now.
That is one of the principle messages of the character is that we know what average humans can do; and now see what a human who has striven to be the best human he can be, can do.
And naturally, some are going to view the idea that a human can strengthen their resolve to the point of holding fast indefinitely is impossible. But it seems as though many writers throughout the years believe in our ability to achieve such a feat. And so do I.

 

[SlamAdams]

To assume that is to deny Batman's quest to become the best version of a human being he can be. And it all comes down to your seeming unwillingness to see human beings be more than they are now.
That is one of the principle messages of the character is that we know what average humans can do; and now see what a human who has striven to be the best human he can be, can do.
And naturally, some are going to view the idea that a human can strengthen their resolve to the point of holding fast indefinitely is impossible. But it seems as though many writers throughout the years believe in our ability to achieve such a feat. And so do I.

You can't have the good without the bad. Without challenges or failures, success means nothing. I believe humans are capable of greatness, but if they weren't also capable of horrible feats than "greatness" would become meaningless. A lot of writers throughout the years knew that too. That's why most utopias in fiction end up being dystopias. And why every person who thinks they can make people better, end up also stripping us of everything that makes who we are.

A Batman who believes killing is bad is admirable. A Batman who does everything in his power to not kill is a hero. A Batman who can't kill, not won't kill, but can't kill ceases to be human and for me interesting. He doesn't even NEED to kill to prove this to me. Most writers write him this exact way, it just irks me when fans think it is completely off the table. Subtracting it from consideration rather than making it a struggle literally stops him from being the best.

 

[Dark Guardian]

You can't have the good without the bad. Without challenges or failures, success means nothing. I believe humans are capable of greatness, but if they weren't also capable of horrible feats than "greatness" would become meaningless. A lot of writers throughout the years knew that too. That's why most utopias in fiction end up being dystopias. And why every person who thinks they can make people better, end up also stripping us of everything that makes who we are.

A Batman who believes killing is bad is admirable. A Batman who does everything in his power to not kill is a hero. A Batman who can't kill, not won't kill, but can't kill ceases to be human and for me interesting. He doesn't even NEED to kill to prove this to me. Most writers write him this exact way, it just irks me when fans think it is completely off the table. Subtracting it from consideration rather than making it a struggle literally stops him from being the best.

And, unfortunately, I think that is where it comes down to a basic philosophical difference between you and me and both sides of this argument.
You need Batman to be struggling not to kill in order to be a relate able character. That's totally fine, it's up to you what characters are relate able to you and what aren't.

But that statement that is continually echoed in the comics "Batman has trained to become the peak of human perfection" or words to that effect, is what makes me to view him not as a human of today (or at least not completely), but a human of tomorrow. Here is what humanity could be if we strengthened our mind, strengthened our body, strengthened our will, and devoted ourselves to a set of morals with all of that strength. And in this one area, he does what no human today seems able to do; remove killing as an option.

I would like to point out that you seem to be taking 'can't kill' in a very literal sense and I would like a little elaboration. Do you mean it in a 'the fans don't ever want to see the character kill' or 'the character is physically incapable of killing'? Because I am very aware that the Batman, is certainly very capable of killing. But his resolve is such that it will never happen. I would never argue for it to be beyond his physical allowance, as that would render his strength of choice close to meaningless.

 

[SlamAdams]

And, unfortunately, I think that is where it comes down to a basic philosophical difference between you and me and both sides of this argument.
You need Batman to be struggling not to kill in order to be a relate able character. That's totally fine, it's up to you what characters are relate able to you and what aren't.

Its not necessarily about relating to him. Its that if his decision to not kill is so unwavering that it would be impossible to change than its not a "decision." He's not choosing anything because there is no other option. That's not heroic, that's robotic. It's literally inhuman.

But that statement that is continually echoed in the comics "Batman has trained to become the peak of human perfection" or words to that effect, is what makes me to view him not as a human of today (or at least not completely), but a human of tomorrow. Here is what humanity could be if we strengthened our mind, strengthened our body, strengthened our will, and devoted ourselves to a set of morals with all of that strength. And in this one area, he does what no human today seems able to do; remove killing as an option.

There is no removing killing as an option. To be 100% on either side is to be inhuman. Being inhuman is not human perfection.

I would like to point out that you seem to be taking 'can't kill' in a very literal sense and I would like a little elaboration. Do you mean it in a 'the fans don't ever want to see the character kill' or 'the character is physically incapable of killing'? Because I am very aware that the Batman, is certainly very capable of killing. But his resolve is such that it will never happen.I would never argue for it to be beyond his physical allowance, as that would render his strength of choice close to meaningless.

You said: "The Batman does not kill. Period."

I interpret that as there are literally no circumstances possible that would put Batman in such a position that he would choose to kill. At the beginning of this whole thing, my point was THAT story where he would kill would be interesting character study.

 

[BlueLightning]

Its not necessarily about relating to him. Its that if his decision to not kill is so unwavering that it would be impossible to change than its not a "decision." He's not choosing anything because there is no other option. That's not heroic, that's robotic. It's literally inhuman.

Wait. So, in your opinion, if Batman has the force of will to maintain his decision of respecting life and not taking it, then he is a robot and not human?

You said: "The Batman does not kill. Period."

I interpret that as there are literally no circumstances possible that would put Batman in such a position that he would choose to kill. At the beginning of this whole thing, my point was THAT story where he would kill would be interesting character study.

Well, it appears that you haven't read some stories then.

 

[SlamAdams]

Wait. So, in your opinion, if Batman has the force of will to maintain his decision of respecting life and not taking it, then he is a robot and not human?

No, I'm saying that if there is NO other way than its not a decision

Well, it appears that you haven't read some stories then.

I'm aware of these, but they do a lot of dancing around the fact. One predates the Batman kill rule, Ra's comes back, KGBeast's circumstance is retconned, one isn't really Batman. Him shooting Darkseid to kill would have been great, but they even dance around that a little if I remember correctly. The killing blow actually came when the Flashes guided his own omega beams back at him or something.

 

[BlueLightning]

The point is that there always is another way. I think you are basing your opinion on the basis that following a rule makes it a mechanized action. It isn't. In fact, choosing to abide to a code is an act of free will. More to the point, doing nothing is also a choice. And isn't free will a basis for humanity?

You want to put Batman in a situation in which he would kill? Fine. Watch the ending of TDK. You can say that Batman kills Harvey Dent by pushing him over the ledge. The point being is that he does it to save Gordon's son and when doesn't have any other option, he makes a choice. So there you have it, a human character who struggles to do the right thing.

 

[SlamAdams]

The point is that there always is another way. I think you are basing your opinion on the basis that following a rule makes it a mechanized action. It isn't. In fact, choosing to abide to a code is an act of free will. More to the point, doing nothing is also a choice. And isn't free will a basis for humanity?

You are mistaking what I mean by "no other way." What I mean is Batman is no longer deciding not to kill. He no longer has a choice. It's cosmic, its kismet, his very existence has been rewired by fan perception to the point that there is no wiggle room no matter how small it might be. Heroism comes from overcoming. He's not overcoming anymore, he just is.

I am basing my opinion that his "rule" has gone beyond a rule in the minds of the fans. It is not treated as staunch determination but as a literal impossibility. People can't even discuss it hypothetically. It seems dishonest that a character of his nature would never be faced with a "kill or be killed" moment. There's always some deus ex machina to save the day, and to me, that whole argument contradicts the fact that what is often touted as the most interesting thing about Batman is he is merely human.

You want to put Batman in a situation in which he would kill? Fine. Watch the ending of TDK. You can say that Batman kills Harvey Dent by pushing him over the ledge. The point being is that he does it to save Gordon's son and when doesn't have any other option, he makes a choice. So there you have it, a human character who struggles to do the right thing.

But its not canon. Michael Keaton strapped a bomb to a strong man and through him in the water. The guys definitely dead too.

 

[BlueLightning]

OK. "This is an imaginary story...aren't they all?"

You know, the thing with a character with such a long story as Batman is that it has such a rich story that there are some core elements that you can't change in a fundamental level. For example, the Batman that appeared in Detective Comics #27 doesn't represent the full picture of the character. The additions that subsequent writers did over the decades that "felt" right are the ones that stuck. I mean, I don't imagine another Batman tale in which Bruce Wayne doesn't have Alfred as a father figure. That wasn't the case in the beginning, it is the same with the act of killing.

Because it has become a fundamental part of who Batman is and what he does. The mugger killed his parents, and he is out there to stop that from happening to another person. If he kills, he contradicts himself.

If I take the "outside-meta" approach you have, from a writer standpoint, with an established character there lies a guideline, there is a character trait you can't avoid. It would be akin to have Batman being inspired by a racoon to fight crime. Then it isn't Batman anymore, it is something else.

That's why it is interesting to put Batman in those kind of situations, we know who he is, and when he overcomes that "to kill or not to kill" situation, it doesn't betray the character. Good stories doesn't have a deus ex machina, and sometimes that deus ex machina isn't a bad thing in itself if well done.

Batman is human, but not every human is Batman.

 

[SlamAdams]

OK. "This is an imaginary story...aren't they all?"

You know, the thing with a character with such a long story as Batman is that it has such a rich story that there are some core elements that you can't change in a fundamental level. For example, the Batman that appeared in Detective Comics #27 doesn't represent the full picture of the character. The additions that subsequent writers did over the decades that "felt" right are the ones that stuck. I mean, I don't imagine another Batman tale in which Bruce Wayne doesn't have Alfred as a father figure. That wasn't the case in the beginning, it is the same with the act of killing.

Because it has become a fundamental part of who Batman is and what he does. The mugger killed his parents, and he is out there to stop that from happening to another person. If he kills, he contradicts himself.

If I take the "outside-meta" approach you have, from a writer standpoint, with an established character there lies a guideline, there is a character trait you can't avoid. It would be akin to have Batman being inspired by a racoon to fight crime. Then it isn't Batman anymore, it is something else.

That's why it is interesting to put Batman in those kind of situations, we know who he is, and when he overcomes that "to kill or not to kill" situation, it doesn't betray the character. Good stories doesn't have a deus ex machina, and sometimes that deus ex machina isn't a bad thing in itself if well done.

Batman is human, but not every human is Batman.

I don't consider his "don't kill" one of those things. Changing the aesthetic is one thing, but I can't accept that Batman as a character is done growing and developing to the point where relative superhero struggles no longer exist.

 

[BlueLightning]

How will Batman killing somebody would make him grow as a character? How come that there is no character growth is that aspect is absent? There are a LOT of ways of character development that can, and have been made in the comics and in different media. Narrowing down to that element is naive, specially since that same element has become one of the most enduring aspects of said character.

Take for example the Brave and the Bold version. Watch "Chill of the Night", there is the primordial example of choosing to end a life.

 

[B:TAS]

What if Batman killed Joker in self defense or direct defense of others. That would technically be legal.

 

[mikezuk]

I think so too

Check out the Killing Joke Motion Comic here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__UfJwmBGFg&list=PLecgEFQ-bvQuzlaCMwnP9vSVNkHjOMB9G

 

[Shikamaru]

Not sure where all this talk about Batman not overcoming killing is coming from. I've read countless stories where his enemies - particularly the Joker more than anyone else - repetitively tries getting him to break his one rule by putting him in situations we as the average person would deem impossible without taking a life. And he always overcomes them. That's part of why so many people admire Batman for that. It's not that writers never put Batman in a situation where his no-kill stance isn't challenged, he overcomes those challenges.

Like Morrison summed it up, Batman fights death. A character doesn't have to constantly change in order to be fully realized; he just has to be given an opportunity for change, and whether or not he takes it says something about his character. The growth is present in that opportunity for change, not in the change itself. In Batman's case, his refusal to change is what makes him interesting. He refuses let Joker or the mob or anything/anyone else change him for the worst or forcing him to break what he stands for.

Honestly, SlamAdams' theory is more applicable to any other hero but Batman. It's true most characters with no-kill policies often have them because...well, they're superheroes. It might tie in with their character to a certain degree, but it's mostly there due to a default status in superhero culture. But throughout the decades, Batman's has grown way past that. He's struggled with his stance more than anyone else, to the point it's grown to define him in a way it doesn't anyone else, including Superman (yes, I'd go there). That's why a Batman who willingly takes a life is the equivalent of a Punisher that willingly doesn't.

 

[dax]

Not sure where all this talk about Batman not overcoming killing is coming from. I've read countless stories where his enemies - particularly the Joker more than anyone else - repetitively tries getting him to break his one rule by putting him in situations we as the average person would deem impossible without taking a life. And he always overcomes them. That's part of why so many people admire Batman for that. It's not that writers never put Batman in a situation where his no-kill stance isn't challenged, he overcomes those challenges.

Like Morrison summed it up, Batman fights death. A character doesn't have to constantly change in order to be fully realized; he just has to be given an opportunity for change, and whether or not he takes it says something about his character. The growth is present in that opportunity for change, not in the change itself. In Batman's case, his refusal to change is what makes him interesting. He refuses let Joker or the mob or anything/anyone else change him for the worst or forcing him to break what he stands for.

Honestly, SlamAdams' theory is more applicable to any other hero but Batman. It's true most characters with no-kill policies often have them because...well, they're superheroes. It might tie in with their character to a certain degree, but it's mostly there due to a default status in superhero culture. But throughout the decades, Batman's has grown way past that. He's struggled with his stance more than anyone else, to the point it's grown to define him in a way it doesn't anyone else, including Superman (yes, I'd go there). That's why a Batman who willingly takes a life is the equivalent of a Punisher that willingly doesn't.

A Batman who doesnt kill is the equivalent of a Superman who does. His refusal to kill is completely flawed because he is not protecting anyone in Gotham City by allowing his enemies to live and throwing them in jail doesn't help either since they continue to break out of jail and terrorize the city. More and more innocent people will get hurt or killed by these maniacs because Batman is unwilling to do what is necessary which is why in the Dark Knight, everyone in Gotham City is blaming Batman for all the Joker killings and for not killing him when he had the chance. Just hearing about his no-kill policy makes Batman out to be an angel who pretends to be a demon which is giving me second thoughts about being a Batfan.

 

[Shikamaru]

A Batman who doesnt kill is the equivalent of a Superman who does. His refusal to kill is completely flawed because he is not protecting anyone in Gotham City by allowing his enemies to live and throwing them in jail doesn't help either since they continue to break out of jail and terrorize the city. More and more innocent people will get hurt or killed by these maniacs because Batman is unwilling to do what is necessary which is why in the Dark Knight, everyone in Gotham City is blaming Batman for all the Joker killings and for not killing him when he had the chance. Just hearing about his no-kill policy makes Batman out to be an angel who pretends to be a demon which is giving me second thoughts about being a Batfan.

And in a way, you prove my point from a few pages ago about how much the no-kill rule defines this character.

It's a fact most superheroes don't kill. A lot of those superheroes fight more dangerous threats than Batman does, like gods and aliens. Yet despite that, you don't seem to be disturbed when those other heroes keep their villains alive, and even support the stance that Superman shouldn't kill. That's because even if you don't agree with superheroes not practicing capital punishment, it's still a peripheral part of their character most of the time. A peripheral part of superhero culture that was originally implemented by censorship. It may not go against their characters, but it also doesn't define them in a grandiose way. So your mind is able to ignore it.

But with Batman, your mind ceases to be able to ignore it because the rule has become such an engrained part of the character to the point you can't separate it from him without radically changing him, so it disgusts you and turns you away. No one has had their no-kill stance as often challenged as Batman did, and what you brought up is a huge ongoing theme in many Batman stories. That's why a Batman who kills is the equivalent of a Punisher who doesn't. You can't have that, it is what makes him Batman.

As for the argument you proposed, I feel the need to point out there's nothing wrong with applying Bruce's morals in real life. In the DC Universe, criminals breaking out and causing havok is weekly universal procedure for all villains, not just Batman ones. In the real world, the Joker would be thrown in prison and stay there, maybe breakout once or twice in a lifetime at best, but definitely not all the dang time like in the comics. Comics do that so writers can have the opportunity to reuse great villains and keep sales going. In other words, it happens because the Joker sells.

Thus if you kill him off, and by Batman's hands, he'll still return not too long after and just continue his gig. What then? Does Batman kill him again? Only for another writer to come along and want to use the Joker, then bring him back and kill him again? Is Batman then in the srkng for not crossing other boundaries and, say, sell him as a slave on Apokolips?

 

[Oswald]

If you want a Batman who kills you've got Thomas Wayne Batman, in the alternate reality where little Bruce died the night of the robbery. It's basically the adult version of the Batman we all know, one who doesn't have the killing tabu, and who is, this time clearly and without discussion, a total villain.

 

[PunyGod]

...