Of course he doesn't, but He behaves like a vigilante (without killing anybody) and he does not hesitate to break few bones or teeth.
BTW, look how low his "S" shield is placed.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest he shouldn't do that though...
So what's your point?
Oh snarkilicious Supes.
I want him to kill just to see the inevitable conversations it would generate on this board.
Because Bruce Wayne wanted to a rounded vigilante? Because guns won't always be ideal in certain situations? Because you won't always have access to a gun? Because knowing how to use just your body is an all-encompassing skillset?
That's a narrow definition of what a hero is. In the broadest sense they are admired and supported for performing feats that take courage, strength, and will. Most of the time it is something that people aren't likely to engage in, making them unique. This makes their actions more revered, for it's something that is needed/desired, but takes a special type to get it done.
I don't really think you've thought this through very well. That is an absurd use of logic. Would you like to challenge the armed forces in why they "bothered" training their soldiers in hand-to-hand combat when they could have made a full push in exclusive weapons training? Or hell, ask the billions of people who have trained in martial arts, who will never actually use their talents in a real world scenario? Is this all wasted?
Thomas was tailored to suit that post-CCA influenced Batman. This is fiction after all. Of course the supporting characters are there to inform and shape the titular character's behavior and mindset. You don't think they could have just as easily written it so Bruce did support guns or murder because of something imparted by his parents?
You're arguing against a false dilemma. Those words would never come from Jonathan's mouth because it is blatantly contradictory. If Jonathan was used as the catalyst to shape Clark's values, his words would directly reflect the spectrum of morality he believes in. IF Jonathan supported murder (of any kind), it would likely be justified as getting rid of "bad people" who would do more harm living than they are dead.
The point is though, why bother training that way, if he was just going to kill? The focus should have been him training to be a stone cold killer. But Batman killing in the early days was never out of rage or malice, it was mostly convenience for him. He trained to stop criminals, not kill them. His methods were designed specifically to stop, not kill. If he was a real killer, he would have trained in others ways. So it never made sense that he would train in this way, just to arrest some, and kill a few? But as I said, he killed out of convenience. The writer thinking of an easy way to explain the problem away, killing them off.
Batman was therefore, an Anti-hero, like The Punisher. Soldiers who kill to save their country, can be considered heroes. Ordinary men who become vigilanties and kill out of personal reasons, I wouldn't consider them heroes. Bruce became Batman to stop what happened to him, happening to anyone else, noble, yes. But killing criminals isn't noble, especially when it's uncalled for when they're are alternatives. I admire The Punisher and the old Batman as Anti-heroes though.
But wouldn't Batman have focused on killing methods instead of martial arts, which were designed to beat down and incapacitate the enemy? Wouldn't have trained to kill after even in his martial arts?[/QUOTE]
Very true. But I would have expected Bruce to shun the act of killing, especially when he was a victim of it. But those were the early days of the character, the original ways. They were just starting out with this initial idea, but when you look at it after years of added work and other characterisations from other writers, you see that non-killing Batman made more sense. It's more though out, and preferable.
True, but Clark was taught to always do the right thing. Killing is not right. Others may dirty their hands in blood, which will taint them forever, being on a very bleak path which will never end, but not Superman. It's not even a choice for him, he doesn't have the nature to kill.
Batman killed when he absolutely had to or if it was a consequence of him plunging through enemies to meet an end goal. He didn't go out every night with the intention to kill. But he also didn't have any apprehensions if you were in his way. What happens, he'll let happen. Giving finality to his enemies had purpose; to showcase Batman wasn't the law and that this is a force of nature that could genuinely threaten criminals.
It could absolutely be considered noble when they're doing the dirty work that no one is willing to do. Why do you think Punisher was successful? In recent time, Dexter Morgan has become a prominent pop figure precisely his idealogy challenges the accepted norm and is a representation of primal urges that is no doubt present in societal justice.
Most martial arts emphasize and incorporate defense, but not all of them. There are a rare few that do cross the line of mortality. This wasn't the era of the comics that explored origins too much however. It was more concerned with the here and now, with a sprinkle of backstory (usually a page or two at most). In any case, the ability to kill in combat is the endpoint in physical engagement. You don't just get to that level without perfecting the basics. I will bring up soldiers again, who have been given permission to kill with firearms as well as their own bodies. They are trained in every possible way to account for every scenario. Guns are not only loud, but it usually requires timing and precision. It is not ideal in every case. As such, Batman would be an absolute moron to gloss over the necessity in proper battle maneuvers when he's actively putting himself in the sight of danger.
It's only made him more conventionally heroic, which ironically isn't what Batman typically is portrayed as. There's nothing inherently senseless about using fire with fire or being fueled by vengeance. Look up any statistics of our worst kinds of people (rapists, murderers, etc.) and you will undoubtedly find history of violence or wrongdoings that led them on that path. There's no right or wrong way to approach dealing with tragedy and loss. There are enough cases to substantiate all forms of coping.
You're not exactly looking at it objectively. It's no use arguing a fictional character's perspective when it was designed that way on purpose. What's "right" to Superman is what it is because that's what the writers have designated. But never mistake that as being written in stone, as the nature of fiction is always boundless and malleable at any given point.
He justified murdering people though. Like that monster created by Hugo Strange. He broke it's neck and justified by saying
I don't look at The Punisher and Dexter as heroes, I look at them as anti-heroes. I can understand though, we see a murderer on TV and we know he's going to jail, but we want to kill him. But does that mean we should? He had no right to take life, but does that give US the right to take his? What are we left with afterwards? Like Batman Forever, Bruce stopped the killing because he found it brung him nothing but more pain. Then it contradicts the message by having him kill Two-face...
I agree with that. But Batman's emphasis was always on martial arts, acrobatics, gadgets designed to incapacitate and capture. He always had the means to stop without killing, like nowadays in the comics.
I drew the line when Robin, a 12 year old boy, killed criminals in his first story, and he got a pat on the back. If Batman acted out of nobility for the greater good, he would have been a better role model for that kid. Pure psycho's.
These aren't educational books or blueprints for morality. Kane and Finger wrote what they envisioned their character to be; someone who took the law into his own hands and sometimes even life itself. Who are we to tell them how to write their creation?
Well here's your first problem: Batman was never a psychopath. Donning the suit to the benefit of others even if it is largely therapeutic to his own vices, that suggests a level of empathy and care for the greater good. Most importantly, Batman has always been able to think rationally and has great insight into his own character, which is in complete contrast to how a psychopath behaves. If anything, he's a lot closer to a sociopath -- but even that is a stretch as he doesn't fit all the conventional traits of one.
The term anti-hero is only used to distinguish individuals whose core qualities are contrary to heroic archetypal attributes. They are still very much a hero -- only a slight variation of one. Bruce has already crossed the line by operating outside the laws and limits written by the people. By extension the similar disregard for certain life follows the self-regulated philosophy. The mortality "issue" is only a question of Bruce's own moral code. It absolutely isn't, and has never been, a case of inconsistency with his own character.
Having the ability to stop at a certain point doesn't mean you won't be forced to exceed those boundaries. Casualties are the norm in that field. There will be many times when you cannot control the outcome.
Robin killed when his life was in danger of being taken. He wasn't out methodically slaying criminals. The greater issue is with Bruce letting a 12 year old fighting alongside crime with him, exposing him directly to dangerous situations. It is downright illogical to hold some perplexed sense of ethics in being ok with that but be aghast that the kid protect himself at all costs, even if it leads to a bad guy's death.I drew the line when Robin, a 12 year old boy, killed criminals in his first story, and he got a pat on the back. If Batman acted out of nobility for the greater good, he would have been a better role model for that kid. Pure psycho's.
Batman and Robin have never murdered.True. But until the day all noble heroes lose theirs morals and teach children it's okay to murder, I'll sleep soundly
I agree. What I would have liked to have known though, is if Kane accepted the idea of Batman sticking closely to morals on life? Or if he preferred his original vision, Batman as a killer?
But is it not sociopathic in our eyes, that Batman is perfectly fine with killing criminals out of convenience, justifying it, and sleeping soundly back home? Patting himself on the back for killing criminals when he has everything at his disposal and then some, to incapacitate them? If the very nature of Batman is therapeutic to Bruce, satisfying himself by thinking it's ok to do this and that for himself and others, then in some ways, mainly due to him killing, as all part of the job I can honestly compare him to the likes of Ra's Al Ghul. A villain who agrees with murder for the sake of the many. That's most definitely not the right way, is it?
Again, should we consider Ra's a villain, a hero, or anti-hero? Cause the old Batman would have most certainly joined up with him, no? I know Batman wasn't designed as a pure killer, but he had no quims about murder, and justified ft as the right thing for the sake of the many...so why not compare him to Ra's?
But feeling the need to prevent such outcome would be sufficent enough, instead of brushing it off.
But he was written with no remorse. He killed someone and just smiled about it...it's creppy. I cant get behind something like that.
I get that. We can't just forget about it. Batman killed, he had his reasons, the writers did their thing. But the world is a far darker place nowadays. We need figures to look up to, and be inspired by. I go for what is right, that Batman and Superman don't kill, because it is wrong. We can't sugarcoat the acts of do-gooders who kill, lynch mobs for example. While it may appear noble to some, it's not. If a vigilantie takes the law into his own hands to bring a criminal in, that's great. But if he takes it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner, then it's wrong. It's murder, you get no reward in Heaven at the end of it, just eternity in Hell
Might as well have lol
Kane and Finger never intended Batman to have absolute value of life. Making him lighter and more compassionate was forced upon them. I went back through my bookmarks and this article should help clarify a lot on the subject. The "no kill" policy wasn't in full effect until the late 80s, which shows just how modern of an alteration it really is. There's much more to the lore than just post-Crisis.
Batman has trace elements of all sorts of mental disorders and the like, but he doesn't satisfy any of them completely (thus cannot be diagnosed under those categories). Which is fitting. He should always teeter that edge, but never fall completely off. Having him mirror so many of his rogues gallery is intentional. The ideologies are rough extensions of Bruce's own, but mixed with sprinkles of insanity and/or megalomania. That is the important distinction. Bruce's actions are from a place of intellectual reason, altruism, and the desire to protect the innocent. The details such as who he (decides to) kill, are secondary to those core values.
Because Ra's is willing to sacrifice millions of innocent lives to start anew. Batman is nowhere near that level of justifying death. Even at his absolute worst Bruce never had the capacity to consider population extinction.
Truth be told the writers and artists back then didn't place much tonal consistency from panel-to-panel. I've just reread the story now, and it isn't played like Robin was thrilled that he killed someone. The dialog didn't even address it. Robin was made to be cheerful, so that's how he was depicted at all times. I don't think it got any more complicated than that. It was simpler times.But he was written with no remorse. He killed someone and just smiled about it...it's creppy. I cant get behind something like that.
Superman and Batman were created at the height of the Great Depression. Cinema and all forms of media flourished because people used them as escapist entertainment. Things aren't necessarily great now, but we're a hell of a lot better off than the people of that era.
Well again, you're letting your personal views influence what you think fictional characters should be. If that's not how they're written or intended to be, then the viewer should accept that. Art isn't mean to conform, but challenge and question.I go for what is right, that Batman and Superman don't kill, because it is wrong. We can't sugarcoat the acts of do-gooders who kill, lynch mobs for example. While it may appear noble to some, it's not. If a vigilantie takes the law into his own hands to bring a criminal in, that's great. But if he takes it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner, then it's wrong. It's murder, you get no reward in Heaven at the end of it, just eternity in Hell
Kaboom!Woosh
