The Dark Knight The “Dark Knight” Debate – Did Batman Need To Fall?

[ultimatefan]

I thought the whole point of the freighter sequence was to show that the city still had some heart. Reminded me of the "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" bit from Spider-Man, and I don't think it worked. At least one of those freighters should have blown.

If it happened, THEN The Joker wins. As desperate as the situation is, think about it, do you wanna live the rest of your life knowing you pressed the buttom that killed dozens of people, especially when you know they had the chance to do the same with you and didn´t? Even the people in the criminals boat weren´t all thugs, there were cops, the crew...

 

[ultimatefan]

That's not what I took away from seeing it. I just thought he wanted to prove a point that good guys turn bad in the right/wrong situation. I agree though that it does take away from his victory that no one knows about it

He does specifically mention "the battle for Gotham´s soul".

 

[abcdefz]

If it happened, THEN The Joker wins. As desperate as the situation is, think about it, do you wanna live the rest of your life knowing you pressed the buttom that killed dozens of people, especially when you know they had the chance to do the same with you and didn´t? Even the people in the criminals boat weren´t all thugs, there were cops, the crew...

Someone would have done it, especially on the boat where they took the vote. The same way at least a couple of people went after the accountant. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a mob mentality, which is the thing I think the Joker really wanted -- to turn the entire city inside out; not just isolated individuals.

 

[ultimatefan]

Someone would have done it, especially on the boat where they took the vote. The same way at least a couple of people went after the accountant. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a mob mentality, which is the thing I think the Joker really wanted -- to turn the entire city inside out; not just isolated individuals.

Maybe yes, maybe not. It would be a tough decision for any person. I know I wouldn´t have the nerve to do it, especially after some time had passed and the people on the other boat still hadn´t blown me up.

And it still could be all for nothing, how could you trust The Joker would live up to the deal? He´s a psychopath.

 

[ultimatefan]

Yes some interpretations of Batman have killed.But even in Frank's Batman the "Moral Code" is handled more like a joke.

And in other's the code in question wasnt alway a top priority.

To me this isint an issue about wether or not the killings were justified.I believe they were.

But you cant deny that its a departure from the character norm's and his strict moral code.



Only if you assume that everyone in the house could have.Even with the begining of the fire you can see some of the Ninjas running for safty but some of them were blown off their feet and thrown wildly accross the rooms.

Those guys cuould have been knocked out by the impact and then died.Not to mention that the League could have had other prisoners that could not free themselfs.

Any of those deaths are on Bruce's head because he started the fire.



To some it was.



Again some of your post seems rather thought out and intelligent while other parts seem like you havent really considered every thing.

The League has existed for thousands of years......do you really think that every current member was in that house at one time?????



Nice one.But there is an other old proverb......."never expect anyone to do the right or smart thing"

If those guys chose to fight over fleeing or putting out the fire that's choices they made. This is essentially a retread of the monorail argument

Like I said not all of them were able to run if they wanted too.



And the difference between the guy in a tank that miss'es his target and Bruce was that Bruce didnt miss his target.He intended to start the fire.

My point was not to say that the deaths and the fire were collateral damage my point as that they werent.He may not have intended for the deaths but what do you expect when you start a fire.




Your definition of the word "MARTYR" differs from mine.The way I see it every time he puts himself in danger he is running the risk of ending up dead for his mission.

It was a desperate measure for a desperate situation, it was either taking the RISK of causing death or being a murderer, he took the lesser of two evils. The only way to save the farmer - and him, if possible - was to create a diversion strong enough for a whole army of ninjas. If the ninjas had immediately ran away, like the farmer, they wouldn´t have died, they wanted to fight Bruce, and were told to stand still by the fake Ra´s, who blocked an exit to fight Bruce, as the fire was going on. They purposefully reduced their chances of survival a lot.

 

[abcdefz]

Maybe yes, maybe not. It would be a tough decision for any person. I know I wouldn´t have the nerve to do it, especially after some time had passed and the people on the other boat still hadn´t blown me up.

Forget the prisoner ship for the moment: on the civilian ship, some 300+ people voted to blow the others up. Do you honestly think that not even one of those people would step up? I think if you pick a random 300+ people, you'll find at least one person who is, say, selfish and potentially violent. Hell, with the right mindset, that person might think they're actually doing something heroic.

 

[ultimatefan]

Forget the prisoner ship for the moment: on the civilian ship, some 300+ people voted to blow the others up. Do you honestly think that not even one of those people would step up? I think if you pick a random 300+ people, you'll find at least one person who is, say, selfish and potentially violent. Hell, with the right mindset, that person might think they're actually doing something heroic.

It´s much easier to be part of the crowd and vote than to take it in your hands to do it. We´re not talking about shoplifting or any minor law break, we´re talking about being the executioner of tenths, hundreds of people. If every group of 300 people has someone willing to be that, God help us all.

 

[abcdefz]

You are much, much more hopeful about the human condition than me.

 

["V"]

Why do people always go on about Bruce killing ninjas in the fire in Begins? It's not like he intentionally started the fire! He just knocked the poker out of the imposter's hands - he didn't go and light the powder!!!

 

[ultimatefan]

You are much, much more hopeful about the human condition than me.

Let me put it this way, I´m not saying it´s impossible that there´d be someone who´d do it, just that it´s not impossible that no one in the boat would have the nerve, given the seriousness of the decision.

Plus, like I said, you´d damn yourself to hell and The Joker might still blow you up anyway, it´s not like they were negotiating with someone reasonable...t:

 

[abcdefz]

I'd think someone would most likely do it out of fear or out of false heroism. Or both.

 

[ultimatefan]

I'd think someone would most likely do it out of fear or out of false heroism. Or both.

To me it was meant to be evocative of what happened during 9/11, after so many years of modern culture being depicted as cynical and apathetic, it really surprised people how many acts of selflessness and heroism were perpetuated in the midst of survival chaos. Some people were so baffled in their skepticism as you are...t:

The problem is not doing it per se, necessarily, it´s living with that after. Even people who kill a single person in self-defense often have a hard time with it, imagine blowing hundreds of people - who weren´t doing anything against you, BTW - up. And everyone would know it was you, and the victims´ families, and so on.

 

[abcdefz]

Uniting after a tragedy is very understandable to me. That's what I thought the Spider-Man scene evoked. (I can't believe I'm saying Raimi's movie did something better than Nolan's, but there you go.) I would have thought at least one person would use the detonator because of that survival insitinct you mention. Especially on the civilian boat, where, like several characters said, they felt the prisoners had "made their choices." You know that somebody on that boat probably thought of them as scum who less deserved life than the civilians did. And if it was taking a chance with Joker's whims, well hell, they were dead anyway, right?

 

[ultimatefan]

Uniting after a tragedy is very understandable to me. That's what I thought the Spider-Man scene evoked. (I can't believe I'm saying Raimi's movie did something better than Nolan's, but there you go.) I would have thought at least one person would use the detonator because of that survival insitinct you mention. Especially on the civilian boat, where, like several characters said, they felt the prisoners had "made their choices." You know that somebody on that boat probably thought of them as scum who less deserved life than the civilians did. And if it was taking a chance with Joker's whims, well hell, they were dead anyway, right?

But I still think you´re taking the seriousness of the decision too lightly. Imagine the trauma of living with that decision for the rest of your days, and being known for that. Perhaps a lot of those people would be fine with it if someone else pushed the buttom, but being the executioner? Plus, like I said, not everyone on the other boat was a thug, there were the cops, the crew, and again, The Joker could still blow you up all the same.

 

[magus]

Your definition of the word "MARTYR" differs from mine.The way I see it every time he puts himself in danger he is running the risk of ending up dead for his mission.

I agree with your definition of martyr and the word can be used to describe Batman's quest in general, as he is suffering a great deal for a set of principles. What I was trying to get across was that Batman would not willingly allow himself to die. He knows it will most likely happen on the battlefield and expects it, but he would never let someone strike him down just to prove a point. For instance, he wouldn't say "Ra's, I won't kill this man. You will have to kill me," and then kneel down waiting for the blow.

Batman is willing to risk his life for the mission, but never just give it up.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

What I was trying to get across was that Batman would not willingly allow himself to die. He knows it will most likely happen on the battlefield and expects it, but he would never let someone strike him down just to prove a point. For instance, he wouldn't say "Ra's, I won't kill this man. You will have to kill me," and then kneel down waiting for the blow.

Batman is willing to risk his life for the mission, but never just give it up.

See I disagree with that as well.

And not because I think that he would quit.

I'm not sure if this is going to come out the way I intend it too but I feel that if there were no other option,and that laying down his life was the only way to truly win then I'm sure that he would allow himself to die or be killed.

Now remember I'm say that there was no other option.Please dont ask me for an example because lets face it.....there are a million and one ways a situation can go and its really not the point.

I'm just saying that if it served the greater good or served the mission I'm sure he would allow himself to be killed.

 

[magus]

See I disagree with that as well.

And not because I think that he would quit.

I'm not sure if this is going to come out the way I intend it too but I feel that if there were no other option,and that laying down his life was the only way to truly win then I'm sure that he would allow himself to die or be killed.

Now remember I'm say that there was no other option.Please dont ask me for an example because lets face it.....there are a million and one ways a situation can go and its really not the point.

I'm just saying that if it served the greater good or served the mission I'm sure he would allow himself to be killed.

Perhaps, but being killed by Ra's Al Ghul because he wouldn't execute a farmer is certainly not that situation.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Unfortunately that isn't always an option. The comic books do it as a matter of convenience, to not have to force Batman to kill, but there should be very little doubt in most people's minds that certain interpretations of Batman would kill if absolutely necessary (Frank Miller comes to mind) to save himself. You can't just say "Batman is good enough to get out of ANY situation"; that is a weak cop-out.

the only versions of batman that accepts the idea of killing are out of continuity interpretations that are written to NOT represent or replace the batman of general canon. and any situation you likely come up with where there is no "C" option, will surely come off as a hollow and contrived ham fisted attempt to prove some weak idea.

The whole purpose of presenting the two choices is to engage in a thought exercise of applying Batman's rule to unusual circumstances. Batman never faces a situation where he has to kill or be killed because the writers write around his moral code, but that doesn't mean we can't apply what we know about the character and basic deontological principles to figure out what actions would be justified. Batman inadvertently killing Ra's's men is justified in the situation it took place in for a few reasons:

1. Again, intent. Bruce had no discernible intention to kill anyone.
2. Bruce's choices at the time were to a) kill an innocent man, b) get killed for not killing an innocent man, or c) create a distraction that could potentially kill those putting him in immediate danger. Killing in self-defense is justifiable and this situation is even less than that as Bruce isn't directly killing. You can't simply say, "there's an option d," especially in this situation where Bruce isn't even Batman yet and has next to no equipment/experience.

its not that writers are writing around the moral code, but rather that when theres someone with batmans skill and resources, hardly would there ever be a situation where killing was the only means necessary. and its not a matter of JUSTIFYING killing. killing can often be justified. its righteousness isnt in question. but rather, to batman, its just not acceptable, no matter how justified it may be.

You can argue that Batman's moral code obligates him to save people as well as not killing them, and that would be a much more worthwhile debate, but it is completely erroneous and a disservice to discussion to say, when presented with ONLY choices A) and B), Batman should choose C).

but its ridiculous to say ONLY A and B are options, when almost every time theres likely a C option. you cant just ignore that option so you can attempt to prove something. it's hollow.

As for Ra's on the train, this is my take: it is justified through the combination of Ra's creating the situation (reaping what you sow), Batman having saved him previously, and the fact that Ra's simply didn't WANT to be saved (very much in line with his character). By destroying the controls Ra's knew he wouldn't survive, regardless of the fact that Batman blew up the track -- what do you think happens to a train with no brakes? Ra's is certainly the type to follow through with his plans at any cost, including his own death, and Batman allows him to make that choice.

again, its not a matter of justification, rather its not acceptable to batman.

The only argument at present is whether or not Batman's moral code obligates him to save everyone in every situation regardless of whether or not he created the situation, and that is a much more complicated one. But neither of these events broke the "no kill" portion of the moral code.

he tackled harvey off a ledge dropping him to his death. how did he not kill him? how is he not responsible for his death?

 

[Motown Marvel]

Ok, so how is Gordon supposed to explain to the hundreds of cops that are outside creating a perimeter for him that his family has been terrorized and that Dent is dead and the only other person on the scene is Batman?

one of joker's nut case henchmen got to him on jokers orders, dent was killed in the process, batman broke it up but the dude got away.

Batman had to fall because he was the only other person ON THE SCENE of Dent's death. It had nothing to do with the other five cops.

first off, lets not pretend batman couldnt disappear before gordon even has time to say he needs to get out of here. secondly, just because batman is present at the scene of the crime doesnt mean he commited the crime. hell, being at the scene of crimes is what he does!

Gordon had a choice: Blame Dent or Blame Batman. That was his ONLY choice.

first, it wasnt his only choice, as i mentioned above, they could say it was unknown joker hench. secondly, whats so bad about telling the truth? the whole movie batman is talking about his faith in the people of gotham. joker says they'll rip eachother apart in a bad situation. batman says they'll persevere. if they truly have faith in the people, they'll tell them the truth. and if their faith is well placed, the people will persevere, which goes even more to proving the joker wrong. that despite his ability to taint harvey dent's mind, the city's hero, the city will not fall because harvey dent fell. they will continue to stand together and believe in gotham and fight against evil and corruption.

There was absolutely no other way to end the movie. If Harvey´s reputation fell, The Joker would win.

as i mentioned above, the joker would not win if harvey's reputation is tarnished. the joker only wins if the people of gotham fall with his reputation. but if gordons and batmans faith in gotham is well placed, then the people will persevere, and joker loses.

Harvey´s prosecutions would fall and criminals and crooked cops would all go back to the streets.

harvey's prosecutions didnt happen because of his reputation. they happened because of the undeniable evidence that was gathered and presented to a judge. despite harvey's reputation, that evidence doesnt change. and that means those people stay in prison.

People would lose hope. Batman was an outlaw vigilante, killing those people was what people would assume he was capable of doing. It was the perfect way to beat Joker in his own game, but for the reasons Joker would never do it, for noble reasons. Yet, it´s true Batman, he always tries to do what he thinks is right, but he doesn´t always play by the books, or does the neat thing that Superman or Spider-Man would do.

if they have no problem playing it "off the books" and "not neat" and obviously have no problem lying to the people they apparently have faith in, then they'd have no problem blaming it on some unknown joker henchman. that way, harvey's reputation is intact, and gotham isnt scared of some masked cop killer roaming their streets at night. instead, they'd have the heroic dark knight watching over them, giving them hope, and protecting them, in void of their fallen "white knight".

And yes, mayhem or not, five dead are five dead, these things are not just overlooked. And Joker was already arrested when Harvey fell and the only two people on the scene were Batman and Gordon. Joker and his goons were alive to testify, deny, give evidence in their favor. If Batman has to, he will confess. Gordon will help him with information. It´s much safer to have someone reliable take the fall on purpose than to depend on accusing others.

surely, they wouldnt be overlooked. but no one is gonna be surprised if things turn up unsolved. it happens all the time and to be expected. and no one knows who all the joker was working with, how many men he had, and what all they were doing. no one is gonna question that he had a goon or two go after harvey and gordon and their families, i mean, they were doing that the WHOLE movie.

Batman has done tons of morally dubious decisions in comics. It wasn´t necessarily wrong to leave Ra´s - trying to save him would make his own escape much harder, carrying extra weight. He also didn´t want to repeat the mistake made earlier, when he risked himself to save Ra´s and paid a big price for it. It wasn´t the noble thing to do, but Batman isn´t always noble. He´s not The Punisher, but he isn´t Superman either.

it certainly would have made his escape harder, but he would have done it knowing he could. knowing its wrong to leave someone to die when he can save them, no matter their sins or actions in the past. do you know how many times batman has saved the life of pretty much any villain you can name? the joker included. he could have easily left them to their own demise, to reap what they sowed. but thats not how batman operates. he's better than that. just because he isnt always moral, doesnt mean he's without moral.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Perhaps, but being killed by Ra's Al Ghul because he wouldn't execute a farmer is certainly not that situation.

I never suggested it was.

Just that Batman is the personalty type.

I feel that what he did was justified even if it was out of character.

 

[magus]

I never suggested it was.

Just that Batman is the personalty type.

I feel that what he did was justified even if it was out of character.

The problem is that by being justified by his moral code, it isn't out of character. It may be an unusual situation for Batman to be in, but anyone can see the reasoning that if Batman's moral code applies to the situation and it isn't broken, then it is well within character. If you can concede that the act is justified within the boundaries of the code, then it is not out of character.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

The problem is that by being justified by his moral code, it isn't out of character.

Now your misunderstanding me again.

I said his actions were justified actions.

But I did not say they were justified by Batman standard's.

Those actions were not in tune with the "Moral Code" that Batman has lived by in the comics.

So they were out of character.

It may be an unusual situation for Batman to be in, but anyone can see the reasoning that if Batman's moral code applies to the situation and it isn't broken, then it is well within character. If you can concede that the act is justified within the boundaries of the code, then it is not out of character.

The moral code in question was modeled by the comic book counterparts moral code.

And in that he was acting out of character as it applies to his moral code.

Starting the fire was not the only way to try to get out of that situation.Much less starting the fire by throwing a heated item into a room filled with flamable and explosive items was not his only option.

He could have just as eazyly thrown it on some drapes or the wooden stakes holding up the railing.

Or he could have just tried to fight his way out of there.Granted all of this may have failed but it would have been more in tune with the "MORAL CODE".

Batman has said himself that no life is worth the taking of an other life......not even his own life.

His actions in the house of RAS may have been justified but they do not fit within the scope of his "MORAL CODE".

 

[magus]

the only versions of batman that accepts the idea of killing are out of continuity interpretations that are written to NOT represent or replace the batman of general canon. and any situation you likely come up with where there is no "C" option, will surely come off as a hollow and contrived ham fisted attempt to prove some weak idea.

Incoming Wall of Text

For reference: Justify = to be an acceptable reason for. Per Merriam-Webster.com

The idea is to prove that there are times when it is acceptable (synonymous with justified by the way, so simply by conceding that these acts are justified you proved my point) for Batman to kill within his moral code, regardless of whether Batman has ever had to face such a scenario. If we can justify such an act then the situations that you are calling into question (monorail, Two-Face's death) do not break the moral code and thus, are not out of character. The situation is contrived, yes --that is the nature of a philosophical thinking exercise -- but that doesn't make it ham-fisted nor hollow. We can take what we know about Batman and apply it to very poignant discussions of ethics. That is what makes Batman such a fantastic character in the first place. You are avoiding the scenario entirely instead of truly thinking about the character and applying what you know. There is NOT always an option C because I gave you a scenario in which no option exists.

its not that writers are writing around the moral code, but rather that when theres someone with batmans skill and resources, hardly would there ever be a situation where killing was the only means necessary. and its not a matter of JUSTIFYING killing. killing can often be justified. its righteousness isnt in question. but rather, to batman, its just not acceptable, no matter how justified it may be.

Who gave Batman said skill and resources? The writers. They are a means to avoid the very question that you are avoiding. The writers don't want Batman to confront this scenario for many reasons: in the past it was simply because they didn't want him to be that violent (late 40's-50's). Today, I would guess it is because the writers don't want to address the repercussions of Batman taking a life.

You concede that Batman killing in certain scenarios is justified, which means it does not violate his moral code; you cannot then say "the act is justified but not acceptable". That is a literal contradiction. If you want to say that killing is never justified, then you have to argue that. If you concede that there are situations in which Batman would be justified in killing, then it IS acceptable.

but its ridiculous to say ONLY A and B are options, when almost every time theres likely a C option. you cant just ignore that option so you can attempt to prove something. it's hollow.

But there isn't always an option C. That is why it is a hypothetical situation. The mere fact that I can come up with said scenario, without it contradicting, means it can exist. It isn't even very difficult to concoct such a situation. Here's a more specific scenario for you:

The Joker wants to test Batman's moral code in a manner similar to myself, only much more diabolically. He has implanted a bomb inside of himself rigged to his heart beat capable of destroying the entire building he is in, filled with hostages. Joker tells Batman "you have one minute to kill me. If my heart is still beating after one minute the bomb will go off. If I am resuscitated the bomb will go off. If you tamper with the bomb it is rigged to go off". There is not enough time to clear out the 20 or so hostages. Batman has to either kill the Joker or allow himself and the 20 hostages to die. What is option C?

You can create a ludicrous situation such as a UFO abducting the Joker, or a less moral police officer coming in and doing the deed for Batman, or have the bomb fail, but aren't THOSE the really hollow situations? They are exaggerated from what happens in the comics (well...sometimes) but they are just as contrived by the writers to avoid answering the really poignant moral question: would Batman kill if the situation demanded it. You can't always count on the situation to just not exist (well you can, but you won't find any worthwhile discussion there), when it definitely holds true that it could.

again, its not a matter of justification, rather its not acceptable to batman.

This statement has already been shown to be a contradiction. An act can't both be justified (acceptable) and unacceptable. Logic 101.

he tackled harvey off a ledge dropping him to his death. how did he not kill him? how is he not responsible for his death?

No one said he didn't kill him. What was said was that killing Harvey was not a violation of his moral code. It was done in self-defense, to protect an innocent life in immediate danger, and there is no indication that his intent was to kill; the Nolans simply didn't want to provide that Option C that you and comic book writers love so much because it doesn't always exist in real life. You can say "but Batman isn't real," but Nolan's interpretation requires a certain level of realism in ethical situations (not necessarily in every facet around that).

I am just asking that you think deeper than you are willing to at present. Batman's moral code is much more complex than simply "no killing" and truly needs to be examined. Your unwillingness to participate in thinking exercises makes discussion impossible. How can we discuss the limits of Batman's code if you are unwilling to concede that there could be a situation that tests it? It gets pretty boring, and not to mention absurd, if Batman ALWAYS finds a way to avoid having to make a difficult choice. There should be repercussions for Batman's actions but the writers shouldn't simply avoid them. When they do that they are depriving us of some truly insightful and riveting material.

 

[magus]

Now your misunderstanding me again.

I said his actions were justified actions.

But I did not say they were justified by Batman standard's.

Those actions were not in tune with the "Moral Code" that Batman has lived by in the comics.

So they were out of character.

How do you not see the contradiction there? You can either say the actions are justified or not. If you are saying they are justified but not acceptable by Batman's standards then you are using two different sets of morals, yours and Batmans. I am purely speaking in Batman's. If you want to say that the killings are unacceptable by Batman's code then you also have to say that they are unjustified. Saying "they are justified by normal rules but not Batman's" doesn't help discussion. Are they justified by Batman's code or not? If not, then you have some points to prove. If yes, then it is not a violation and not out of character.

The moral code in question was modeled by the comic book counterparts moral code.

And in that he was acting out of character as it applies to his moral code.

Starting the fire was not the only way to try to get out of that situation.Much less starting the fire by throwing a heated item into a room filled with flamable and explosive items was not his only option.

He could have just as eazyly thrown it on some drapes or the wooden stakes holding up the railing.

Or he could have just tried to fight his way out of there.Granted all of this may have failed but it would have been more in tune with the "MORAL CODE".

Batman has said himself that no life is worth the taking of an other life......not even his own life.

His actions in the house of RAS may have been justified but they do not fit within the scope of his "MORAL CODE".

The problem with this scenario is that we don't know his intent. We have no idea whether or not Bruce wanted any of those men to die. Batman's moral code is all about choice: Batman will never be judge, jury, and executioner; he will never choose to take another man's life if he doesn't have to. Does collateral damage constitute a choice? No. Should he be upset if someone died from the situation he created. Sure, but that doesn't mean that he CHOSE to take a life, which is what the code is all about.

Incidental deaths take a toll on Batman, but they aren't a violation of any code because they are incidental. If I drop a banana peel on the ground and someone slips on it and into oncoming traffic, getting hit by a bus, did I choose for that person to die? No. Am I responsible and will I feel like ****? Absolutely, but I didn't violate any mantra that says "I will not kill".

The alternate scenarios you have created for Bruce are cop-outs. He was forced to make a powerful ethical choice by the writer instead of simply avoiding the scenario altogether like in the comics.

Another problem with this scenario is that Batman isn't in it. We have no idea how much of this code even exists in the mind of Bruce Wayne at this point. We know he isn't willing to kill the farmer, but how far does that go? You can't really call this part out of character because we don't know if that part of the character even existed yet.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

How do you not see the contradiction there?

Because there is no contradiction.

You can either say the actions are justified or not. If you are saying they are justified but not acceptable by Batman's standards then you are using two different sets of morals, yours and Batmans.

Correct.I'm saying that by law and by my morals killing is some time's justified.

But Batman's morals is that killing is never justified.

And if Batman ends up killing for any reason even if you and I feel its justified by the Moral Code Batman had lived by it would not be.

It would mean that he broke his code.

Which is what he did in BEGINS.Unless you want to say that he hadn't established that code for himself at that point.

And by the way breaking that rule is more realistic then keeping it at all cost.And Nolan was trying to make his Batman more realistic.

I am purely speaking in Batman's. If you want to say that the killings are unacceptable by Batman's code then you also have to say that they are unjustified.

And they are by Batmans code.

Batman of the comics anyway.

A more realistic batman [like Nolans] would have to ether bend that rule a bit more often then the comic counterpart or be a little less picky about how he views it.

Saying "they are justified by normal rules but not Batman's" doesn't help discussion.

Sure it does because I'm sharing my thoughts and opinions and thats why we are all here in the first place

Are they justified by Batman's code or not? If not, then you have some points to prove.

I've already proven those points.

Time and Time again Batman has shown that he wont take a life...not even to save his own.

He always finds a 3rd option.

Now would that work in a realistic situation....NO....but nether would sticking to the same code.

So the codes in question are not the same.

The problem with this scenario is that we don't know his intent. We have no idea whether or not Bruce wanted any of those men to die.

His intention is irrelevant.The only real relivent issue is wether or not it was "FORESEEABLE" that any of those men would die.

And it was.

Batman's moral code is all about choice: Batman will never be judge, jury, and executioner; he will never choose to take another man's life if he doesn't have to.

Thats not the code by which the comic book version lives by.

The comic Batman wont kill at all.

Does collateral damage constitute a choice? No.

But the death caused by a fire he started intensionally can not be considered collateral damage.

It was his plan to start the fire not a mistake.

Should he be upset if someone died from the situation he created. Sure, but that doesn't mean that he CHOSE to take a life, which is what the code is all about.

When he chose to start the fire he chose to be responsible for everything that fire effected...including the lost of life.

Incidental deaths take a toll on Batman, but they aren't a violation of any code because they are incidental. If I drop a banana peel on the ground and someone slips on it and into oncoming traffic, getting hit by a bus, did I choose for that person to die?

True....But if threw that banana peel in front of a persons path hoping that they would slip and fall for a laugh.....and they do and then fall into oncoming traffic getting hit by a bus and die as a result you are responsible for killing them.

Did you chose that person to die.....NO because you couldnt really be expect to foresee the sequence of events to follow.

See the difference???

Thats what Batman did....in a sense he trew the banana peel down on purpose.

If he had punched a guy and that person had tripped and started the fire and people were killed then Batman would not have killed.

But since Batman started the fire and it its 100% foreseeable that people could be killed in that fire and are killed by that fire then it was batman that killed them.

And since it was his plan to start the fire in question....even knowing that some may die and he still does it....then it is against his code.

The alternate scenarios you have created for Bruce are cop-outs. He was forced to make a powerful ethical choice by the writer instead of simply avoiding the scenario altogether like in the comics.

Thats fine...but no matter how you spin it his actions were outside the of the characters "Moral Code".

Another problem with this scenario is that Batman isn't in it. We have no idea how much of this code even exists in the mind of Bruce Wayne at this point. We know he isn't willing to kill the farmer, but how far does that go? You can't really call this part out of character because we don't know if that part of the character even existed yet.

This is about the only part that I can completely agree with.I even said as much in an earlyer post or on one in an other thread.

Its very possible that at that point in the character's development he had not made up his mind as to what his code really was yet.

Also we have to consider that "THE CODE" may not be set in the same "STONE" that his comic book counterparts is set.

Meaning that Nolan Batman might consider "Self defense" a reason to kill while we already know that the comic version does not......for the most part anyway.