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

[magus]

Because there is no contradiction.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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

The comic Batman wont kill at all.



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





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.



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



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.

Here let's cut through the BS and get straight to the heart of the matter: Utilizing what you know about Batman of the comics, explain what Batman would choose in a situation in which the only choices were to kill the criminal or be killed. Likewise, what would Batman do if the situation was to kill or have an innocent be killed? No 3rd options, no cop-outs, no relying on skills or resources, just a pure ethical choice.

Here's another one to ponder about: If Batman punches a criminal so hard that he kills him, with absolutely every intention of only disabling him, has he broken his code?

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

Let's run with this one. By this logic Batman should have broken his code simply by becoming Batman. The escalation caused by Batman's appearance surely was foreseeable -- one of your criteria -- and the rise of criminals created by the presence of Batman created a lot of casualties. If your statement about the fire holds true, then Batman would be responsible for every death that has occurred at the hands of a criminal created by the presence of Batman, which is a good portion of his rogue gallery. You can't say that Batman didn't expect the villains to fight back anymore than you can't say that he knew the fire may kill. Batman took on a symbol, aware of the possibility that there would be a loss of life beyond his own, as he did with the fire. Your logic indicates that Batman is responsible for every life lost to a criminal created by the presence of Batman, breaking his moral code (according to your version of it), and I don't think anyone wants to concede to that.


To my first scenario, if you end up saying Batman will kill then everything you have posted about his code does not hold true; Bruce in BB was acting completely in character because Batman's moral code exists in the "real" world in his actions. If you say Batman will allow himself, or even worse, an innocent to die just to uphold what you believe constitutes his moral code, then you have a lot of explaining to do.

Nowhere in modern Batman have I seen any indication that Batman would allow himself, or an innocent to be killed (if IMMEDIATELY in danger) rather than kill a criminal. I HAVE seen plenty of indications that Batman would: namely his fear of succumbing to his blood-thirst, indicating that Batman is more than capable and at some level willing.

Batman's rule isn't as broad as "No one will ever be killed by any choice I make, action I take, or by my mere presence". Batman's rule dictates that he won't make a conscious choice to end the life of another person when there are other means to handle the situation (and in the comics there are ALWAYS other means), specifically in the context of vengeance, from which his symbol was born.

Note: You can also refer to my scenario in a post on the last page where the Joker leaves Batman with such a choice. Your opinion on that will be interesting.

 

[Motown Marvel]

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.

i NEVER said it was ever justifiable for batman to kill. i was speaking in general terms of general people where there are instances where killing is justified. but that does not apply to batman, because batman believes killing is NEVER necessary, therefore, by his personal standards, killing is never justified. and i do not wish to see contrived scenarios just for the sake of philosophy, thats ridiculous and not quality storytelling.

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.

while you can guess all you want, im pretty certain you dont have any idea as to why writers "dont want to address" the issue. and, if we're playing the guessing game here, im pretty sure its not a matter of not wanting to address it, as im sure there are many writers who are intrigued by the idea, but rather they know better, because they know and respect the character.

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.

i never said batman would justify killing.

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.

well, if you want to play it as such a contrived and ridiculous situation, then you're gonna get an equally contrived and ridiculous answer where batman sets off an EMP device stored on his utility belt, immediately knocking out all electronic devices. even the "anti-tamper" thing wouldnt be able to engage.

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

as i said before, i never stated batman would justify killing. just that killing can be justified in general, but that doesnt apply to batman. because he would never justify a means to kill.

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).

first off, the movies are every bit as fake as the comics. and the comics, more often than not, rely on as much realism as the movies. secondly, the nolans chose not to provide option c? thats ******ed and contrived. thats cheating the story and just poor writing. thankfully, im pretty sure you dont speak on behalf of the nolan's intentions.

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.

first off, i never said i was against his moral code being tested, it constantly is, and thats a good thing that makes good stories. situations that test are indeed fun and intriguing. and just because he is often able to find a way out of situations without killing, doesnt mean batman isnt making hard choices. it'd be a hell of a lot easier of a choice to take a gun and blow out the jokers brains knowing he'll never have to deal with him again, knowing the joker will never take the life of an innocent again. thats an easy choice. not killing his enemies is a far more difficult choice and task than the decision to kill will ever be. and very often the writers have shown the repercussions of his decision to not kill. nothing is being deprived. writers over the decades have fully explored these ideas.

secondly, his moral code is in fact pretty much as simple as "no killing", since everything batman does, the way he operates, does not take killing into account.

you keep talking about what batman would do in these ridiculous and contrived situations where you want to see him forced kill someone, as if you have something to back it up as proof. but you dont. this is your own personal speculation based on your own personal idea of what you think batman should be and do. but the facts are found in decades worth of comic book material that shows the truth. i suggest you look into it.

p.s. if i want to see the limits of batmans moral code tested and broken....i'd really hope to see it presented in a far less lame way than two face being tackled over a ledge for holding a gun to a kids head. thats just weak.

 

[Motown Marvel]

double post

 

[wootbaby]

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.

I LOL IRL reading this post. Dude, you realize that post consists of quoting blocks of text then saying the exact same 2 things over and over? You wrote a variation of "not Batman's code in the comics" SEVEN times in that one post and "Batman would not kill" like 4-5 times. However emphatic, a declaration that 'THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER' doesnt actually constitute a logical rebuttal. And typing it over and over doesn't make it any more convincing. I mean the other guy is exploring implication and modal logic (if A then B) and you're in response typing "batman doesn't do that in the comics" which has already been said 100x in this thread already.

I also dont see why you keep going back to the monastery fire, particularly when you've failed to link any sort of intent or causality to Bruce's actions. I understand it bothers you and it's fine. But also realize you haven't presented it anywhere close to convincing someone who disagrees with you. If you have a point try making it from another angle. Unless you can somehow show that Bruce planned for those guys to die and took action to prevent their escape you cant make a convincing argument that he "killed' those guys. If they died as a result of the conflict it's collateral damage. Just like if you fire your M16 at some enemies and shoot your own guy, that's collateral damage. There's no intentional collateral damage or unintentional collateral damage, you pulled the trigger and collateral damage occurred. If you pulled the trigger intending for your bullets to hit your own guys it's just called murdering your own troops. If you pulled the trigger trying to hit the bad guys and just happened to hit your own guys (or they ran into your area of fire after the fact) that's collateral damage. Whether Batman set the fire or not doesn't matter in defining this term. If he set it and guys simply didn't get themselves out it's collateral damage. If he set it as some sort of trap then that's murder. Not much wiggle room there if you dont like it call it something else in your arguments dont call it collateral damage.

Remember that this thread is about the movie. But even if you're going to reference the comics, realize that if you're going to conjecture on a precise hypothetical situation that Batman has actually never faced in the comics, it's illogical to talk about a different(however similar) situation he faced and what he did there. To my knowledge there has never been a situation where Batman faced the dilemma that magus proposes. He's always been in a similar but soundly different situation (with a 3rd option). For this specific discussion with TWO and only two options, what Batman did in that other situation is NOT predictive, for obvious reasons I'm sure you understand.

ALSO understand that the comics themselves are not predictive. Characters can change... when Batman first started he did not have a code. He carried a gun. Farthermore as the character developed and new writers and editors came on board he increasingly took on the characteristics of Doc Savage and the Blue Beetle. And in the 60s and 70s he even took on characteristics of 007. Ra's al Ghul is himself a reflection of the popularity of Ian Fleming-style international masterminds of that period. Think of a Batman fan from the 60s who grew up not only with the campy TV show but the comics themselves which were very bright and cheesy. I guarantee you that transplanted to 2008 they would not recognize the character, they certainly would be totally ignorant of an idea of Batman without Robin. Is this to say that writers are going to change Batman's code any time soon? No of course not, but realize that interpretations of the character can and WILL change. Especially in a different medium there has to been room for interpretation of the character. In other words talking about the movie and saying "but but comics..." doesn't constitute a logical or convincing argument when it comes to Batman's actions in the movies. Nor does confusing personal preference and opinion for finality concerning the issue.

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.

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.

I probably mainly agree with you here, but Nolan's Batman has been incredibly consistent throughout the movies. I've posted this earlier but there's a reason why Nolan keeps putting Batman in basically the same situation over and over... where he has to make a tough choice, it's in order to save lives, and someone seems to die in the end. It's a provocative question and I can see why people might be disturbed by it. Nolan can't put Batman in a situation where it's 1)murder or 2)die with no 3rd option because there is no where he can go with that, unless he makes Batman into a completely different character (which WB would NEVER allow). So he does the next best thing it's a death where there is no causality (so Batman isn't technically responsible), it saves people (therefore justifying the action) and it's ambiguous (did he die or didn't he? this point isn't actually a point of logic but a device to soften the impact for viewers). And it is a fine line he treads, missing 1 of those 3 elements, it might tip it the other way. For example if Batman knocked Harvey out the window during a fight without it being an attempt to save Jimmy... it would be the same thing as his fight with Joker (who he DID save). There is a reason why Nolan sets it up like this and specifically this.

 

[COMPO]

here's the thing the Joker used the boats to destory Gotham's 'soul' and Dent was that in a way as well. Dent was one of the only good public officials that people could relly on you take that away and it'll be like it was when Falcone ran things even more corrupt and people would believe that justice could prevail.

Batman 'sacrificed' himself for Dent, because Dent doesn't wear a mask... people know who he is with Batman theres still untrustworthy and fear around him as apposed to Dent who doesn't hide who he is.

 

[ultimatefan]

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.



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!


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.



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 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.



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".


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.



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.

What is the better way to make a false accusation stick? Accuse people who´ll fight back, deny, present alibis and evidence, or someone who´s not only a very convenient suspect but, if caught, will willfully confess and take the fall? No question there. Not to mention Joker and his goons were all already arrested when Harvey was "killed".


Harvey was a huge symbol of hope for the city, for all he was accomplishing as a DA after years of the population having no trust in public servants, which was one of the big reasons the city morale went down. It´s not just about having faith in the city, but, as Batman says, rewarding their faith. Gotham still has goodness in it and can recover, but it´s been in very bad shape for years. The Joker wanted to prove that all goodness and reason is meaningless and can be totally destroyed, and Batman´s act, while not "by the books", was still an act of self-sacrifice for a greater cause, and preserved Harvey´s symbolic strength and his prosecutions.

People won´t stay in prison. Harvey went insane and killed people, even held a child and a woman hostages, which put his character in HUGE question, and puts how his evidences were obtained in question. That´s all even mildly competent lawyers need to put down all his prosecutions. The character of the accusers and authorities involved is of HIGH importance in criminal lawsuits, often a jury pays more attention to that than evidence.

Being at the scene of the crime makes Batman a convenient suspect, which is what he´s taking advantage of.

Five people killed by the same person is very hard to just leave unsolved without any suspicions. And if memory serves me at least one of his victims was a cop. Not to mention having to explain the DA´s death. It wouldn´t blow over easily.

It depends on the interpretation of the character. Some writers like Batman closer to a rigid Superman morals, others like to stretch it a little more. To me a big part of the point of the character is, while he´s not a flat-out judge and executioner like Punisher, he lives in a darker, more gray area than Superman. When your own life is at stake, it´s not wrong to prioritize your own safety. It´s not noble, but like I said, Batman isn´t always noble.

 

[magus]

i NEVER said it was ever justifiable for batman to kill. i was speaking in general terms of general people where there are instances where killing is justified. but that does not apply to batman, because batman believes killing is NEVER necessary, therefore, by his personal standards, killing is never justified. and i do not wish to see contrived scenarios just for the sake of philosophy, thats ridiculous and not quality storytelling.

Then stop speaking in general terms. I don't care if you justify killing, I care that Batman would in a certain situation.



while you can guess all you want, im pretty certain you dont have any idea as to why writers "dont want to address" the issue. and, if we're playing the guessing game here, im pretty sure its not a matter of not wanting to address it, as im sure there are many writers who are intrigued by the idea, but rather they know better, because they know and respect the character.



i never said batman would justify killing.

well, if you want to play it as such a contrived and ridiculous situation, then you're gonna get an equally contrived and ridiculous answer where batman sets off an EMP device stored on his utility belt, immediately knocking out all electronic devices. even the "anti-tamper" thing wouldnt be able to engage.

Of course you take a cop-out instead of engaging in any type of real thought or discussion. Basically all you are able to say at this point is "Batman has never had to make this choice and never will because the writers won't allow it". Your inability and/or unwillingness to answer the questions implies that you are either:

1. Afraid to admit the answer

2. Are unable to think up a response

We use hypothetical scenarios to test the logic and limits of a set of beliefs, which is what I am doing with Batman's code but you would rather dance around the question than actually come up with something worthwhile to say.

first off, the movies are every bit as fake as the comics. and the comics, more often than not, rely on as much realism as the movies. secondly, the nolans chose not to provide option c? thats ******ed and contrived. thats cheating the story and just poor writing. thankfully, im pretty sure you dont speak on behalf of the nolan's intentions.

Or they didn't want to resort to using a "super EMP," or a lucky break.

first off, i never said i was against his moral code being tested, it constantly is, and thats a good thing that makes good stories. situations that test are indeed fun and intriguing. and just because he is often able to find a way out of situations without killing, doesnt mean batman isnt making hard choices. it'd be a hell of a lot easier of a choice to take a gun and blow out the jokers brains knowing he'll never have to deal with him again, knowing the joker will never take the life of an innocent again. thats an easy choice. not killing his enemies is a far more difficult choice and task than the decision to kill will ever be. and very often the writers have shown the repercussions of his decision to not kill. nothing is being deprived. writers over the decades have fully explored these ideas.

This much I agree with. It absolutely is harder to not kill, which is what makes Batman so intriguing. In light of that, I think it would be fascinating to see how it would affect him if he HAD to kill. Use the word "contrived" as much as you want, but that is always a POSSIBLE scenario. The lack of a situation like this (that I know of) means the writers HAVEN'T fully explored the idea, and honestly they never will; that isn't a put down on what they have done because I obviously love Batman, but there is always more to explore with an moral code like Batman's.

secondly, his moral code is in fact pretty much as simple as "no killing", since everything batman does, the way he operates, does not take killing into account.

For one it is that he will never make the CHOICE to kill (which may be excepted in a scenario like I have provided), not that any action he ever does will never result in a death, which is more in like with what Sto-vo-kor is trying to say. I am not sure if you agree with him on that.

you keep talking about what batman would do in these ridiculous and contrived situations where you want to see him forced kill someone, as if you have something to back it up as proof. but you dont. this is your own personal speculation based on your own personal idea of what you think batman should be and do. but the facts are found in decades worth of comic book material that shows the truth. i suggest you look into it.

You keep saying contrived as if it is a negative and surprising quality to me; the very definition of a hypothetical situation is that it is contrived. If you feel I am unjustified in stating that Batman would kill in the scenario kill or be killed, then prove it using logic rather than stating that the writers have set no precedent for the situation or that they will always find a way around it; just pure logic and reasoning. I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that modern Batman would kill rather than allow himself or an innocent to be killed if it was the only means.

There should be no doubt that Miller's Batman would do it, but you will just say it isn't canon; which also means that I can say that anything from Golden or Silver Age Batman (pre-Crisis) isn't canon either because we only follow modern Batman. "Hush," which was pretty recent and canon, had Batman come *this* close to killing the Joker, only to be stopped by Gordon. Just because Batman does not want to choose to take another man's life doesn't mean that he wouldn't if the situation absolutely called for it. The writers make sure the situation doesn't, but that doesn't make a hypothetical situation impossible.

p.s. if i want to see the limits of batmans moral code tested and broken....i'd really hope to see it presented in a far less lame way than two face being tackled over a ledge for holding a gun to a kids head. thats just weak.

I agree with that as well. Fortunately that situation doesn't even qualify as a test. Batman's actions led to an incidental (read: not intended. Wootbaby has explained this point more thoroughly) death while trying to save the boy. While Batman may feel bad about it, it isn't even close to making the DECISION of killing a man.

I am asking you a very simple question (though apparently not simple for you to answer) and instead of providing a response you are dancing around it. Go ahead and make some pithy remark about how my "contrived scenario doesn't deserve a full response" or some BS. It just reflects poorly on your ability to reason. If you make a valid point about Batman's decision in the scenario KILL OR BE KILLED with no other options, then I will concede. But avoiding the question altogether and claiming that you are above it, or that my question is below you (which is what you are implying when you say that it is "contrived and hollow") is not helping discussion.

How does Batman's moral code apply to the situations of kill or be killed and kill or an innocent will be killed? If it makes it easier, consider it just a hypothetical in Bruce's mind: he is debating internally what he would do if such a situation should ever arise, however unlikely. Is he willing to take a life or will he allow himself to be struck down or allow an innocent to die to preserve his own morality? Surely such a hypothetical situation, relegated to thought bubbles, isn't out of line.

Now will you say something worthwhile or just find another work-around?

 

[magus]

I LOL IRL reading this post. Dude, you realize that post consists of quoting blocks of text then saying the exact same 2 things over and over? You wrote a variation of "not Batman's code in the comics" SEVEN times in that one post and "Batman would not kill" like 4-5 times. However emphatic, a declaration that 'THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER' doesnt actually constitute a logical rebuttal. And typing it over and over doesn't make it any more convincing. I mean the other guy is exploring implication and modal logic (if A then B) and you're in response typing "batman doesn't do that in the comics" which has already been said 100x in this thread already.

I also dont see why you keep going back to the monastery fire, particularly when you've failed to link any sort of intent or causality to Bruce's actions. I understand it bothers you and it's fine. But also realize you haven't presented it anywhere close to convincing someone who disagrees with you. If you have a point try making it from another angle. Unless you can somehow show that Bruce planned for those guys to die and took action to prevent their escape you cant make a convincing argument that he "killed' those guys. If they died as a result of the conflict it's collateral damage. Just like if you fire your M16 at some enemies and shoot your own guy, that's collateral damage. There's no intentional collateral damage or unintentional collateral damage, you pulled the trigger and collateral damage occurred. If you pulled the trigger intending for your bullets to hit your own guys it's just called murdering your own troops. If you pulled the trigger trying to hit the bad guys and just happened to hit your own guys (or they ran into your area of fire after the fact) that's collateral damage. Whether Batman set the fire or not doesn't matter in defining this term. If he set it and guys simply didn't get themselves out it's collateral damage. If he set it as some sort of trap then that's murder. Not much wiggle room there if you dont like it call it something else in your arguments dont call it collateral damage.

Remember that this thread is about the movie. But even if you're going to reference the comics, realize that if you're going to conjecture on a precise hypothetical situation that Batman has actually never faced in the comics, it's illogical to talk about a different(however similar) situation he faced and what he did there. To my knowledge there has never been a situation where Batman faced the dilemma that magus proposes. He's always been in a similar but soundly different situation (with a 3rd option). For this specific discussion with TWO and only two options, what Batman did in that other situation is NOT predictive, for obvious reasons I'm sure you understand.

ALSO understand that the comics themselves are not predictive. Characters can change... when Batman first started he did not have a code. He carried a gun. Farthermore as the character developed and new writers and editors came on board he increasingly took on the characteristics of Doc Savage and the Blue Beetle. And in the 60s and 70s he even took on characteristics of 007. Ra's al Ghul is himself a reflection of the popularity of Ian Fleming-style international masterminds of that period. Think of a Batman fan from the 60s who grew up not only with the campy TV show but the comics themselves which were very bright and cheesy. I guarantee you that transplanted to 2008 they would not recognize the character, they certainly would be totally ignorant of an idea of Batman without Robin. Is this to say that writers are going to change Batman's code any time soon? No of course not, but realize that interpretations of the character can and WILL change. Especially in a different medium there has to been room for interpretation of the character. In other words talking about the movie and saying "but but comics..." doesn't constitute a logical or convincing argument when it comes to Batman's actions in the movies. Nor does confusing personal preference and opinion for finality concerning the issue.





I probably mainly agree with you here, but Nolan's Batman has been incredibly consistent throughout the movies. I've posted this earlier but there's a reason why Nolan keeps putting Batman in basically the same situation over and over... where he has to make a tough choice, it's in order to save lives, and someone seems to die in the end. It's a provocative question and I can see why people might be disturbed by it. Nolan can't put Batman in a situation where it's 1)murder or 2)die with no 3rd option because there is no where he can go with that, unless he makes Batman into a completely different character (which WB would NEVER allow). So he does the next best thing it's a death where there is no causality (so Batman isn't technically responsible), it saves people (therefore justifying the action) and it's ambiguous (did he die or didn't he? this point isn't actually a point of logic but a device to soften the impact for viewers). And it is a fine line he treads, missing 1 of those 3 elements, it might tip it the other way. For example if Batman knocked Harvey out the window during a fight without it being an attempt to save Jimmy... it would be the same thing as his fight with Joker (who he DID save). There is a reason why Nolan sets it up like this and specifically this.

At least you understand where I am going with this. I'm tired of all the dancing around the issue and really just want to hear simple responses to the proposed scenario. Calling a contrived situation contrived is just really unhelpful and a letdown when I come online expecting to read a reply that challenges my opinion and makes me either dig deeper or concede that there is a flaw to it.

While I agree that such a situation would change the character forever, there are ways to address it without doing so: the most obvious, besides placing Batman in such a situation, is to have him pose the question to himself, or have someone else pose it. Batman working through it himself could be a great read for an inner-turmoil type issue.
We know he is the type to consider EVERY single situation he will be in and how he will get out of it, so it isn't completely out of line to expect that he would think of this or has already.

Batman's own answer wouldn't even be definitive because he could just as easily fall apart should the situation arise and the comic writer will ALWAYS grant him a way out of the situation. But I would love to at least see it mentioned in some capacity, though I probably wouldn't ever want to see the real scenario in canon because it would, as you have said, alter Batman forever.

 

[The Guard]

There was absolutely no other way to end the movie. If Harvey´s reputation fell, The Joker would win. Harvey´s prosecutions would fall and criminals and crooked cops would all go back to the streets. People would lose hope.

Where is this written? Why would this ever happen?

 

[ultimatefan]

Where is this written? Why would this ever happen?

I already explained that in other posts.

 

[The Guard]

No, you didn't. You just said Gotham would lose hope. You haven't explained to me why criminals who have tons of evidence against them would suddenly walk just because Dent did something awful after the fact.

 

[ultimatefan]

No, you didn't. You just said Gotham would lose hope. You haven't explained to me why criminals who have tons of evidence against them would suddenly walk just because Dent did something awful after the fact.

Read the last page or couple pages.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Here let's cut through the BS and get straight to the heart of the matter: Utilizing what you know about Batman of the comics, explain what Batman would choose in a situation in which the only choices were to kill the criminal or be killed. Likewise, what would Batman do if the situation was to kill or have an innocent be killed? No 3rd options, no cop-outs, no relying on skills or resources, just a pure ethical choice.

Its impossible to really answer that question under the terms you put foward.

One you want me to answer the question useing everything I know about the comic book Batman but at the same time you want me limit Batmans actions to not relying on skills,resources or his uncanny ability to come up with a 3rd option.

And two the question is a bit redundant since the circumstances is open to the writters interpretation of the character.

Your question contradicts itself.

But as I already pointed out, time and time again, Comic's Batman has been put into that kind of situation and every time his solution was to come up with a 3rd option.

That proves at the very least that he would be un-willing to take the option that leads to a persons death.

Here's another one to ponder about: If Batman punches a criminal so hard that he kills him, with absolutely every intention of only disabling him, has he broken his code?

Now your trying to argue a un-proveable issue.

Batman for the most part tempers his blows knowing just how hard a person can be hit.

But to answer your question batman would feel that he broke his code.

Durring the "Armageddon 2001" event they told a possible Batman future story that explains this.

It was set a few years into the future in which Batman and the Penguin were about 15 [or more] years older.

The Penguin died in the fight while trying to kill Batman and some woman.He died of an apparent heart attack and Batman felt he broke his code because he felt he should have considered that the Penguin had reached the age in which he couldnt partake in such a fight.

Batman allowed himself to be arrest ,tried and found quitly, and sentenced to death for his crime of murder.

Turns out that it was really a trap from the Joker but the simple fact that he was about to allow himself to be executed for thinking he killed the Penguin proves my point.

Let's run with this one. By this logic Batman should have broken his code simply by becoming Batman. The escalation caused by Batman's appearance surely was foreseeable -- one of your criteria -- and the rise of criminals created by the presence of Batman created a lot of casualties.

How do you figure???

The choice in one person becoming a police officer does not mean that there will be an increase in the amount or criminals on the street.

As a matter of fact considering the public outlook of the city it would seem that Batman prescience actually reduced crime in the city and inspired other do help out in that cause.

The escalation in the type of pysco's that Batman attracts was like wise unforeseeable.

How is it foreseeable that a person that decides to make himself a symble of justice would inspire the dreads of society to do the same for for means of destroying society.

The only thing you can really say is that continuing to be Batman he can foresee a continued escalation of the type of insane people like the Joker but not at the beginning of his carrier as Batman.

But at this point that damage has already been done.

Batman took on a symbol, aware of the possibility that there would be a loss of life beyond his own, as he did with the fire. Your logic indicates that Batman is responsible for every life lost to a criminal created by the presence of Batman, breaking his moral code (according to your version of it), and I don't think anyone wants to concede to that.

I dont see it that way and for one reason.

The wicked and evil dont need any reason to behave wicked and evil.

These people will always be around...they were around Before Batman and will continue to be around after Batman.

None of these criminals were really created by Batman.

In the long run many of these bad guys have simular origins to Batman.They all suffered a great tragic event .....but unlike Batman they all turned it inwards and feel that the world owes them something and they feel like getting some payback.

They take up the feeling that if they have to suffer then the world has to suffer.

Batman on the other hand to his tragic event and decides to do something about it.To give back to a world that has done nothing but take from him.

To make sure no one else has to suffer what he had to.

Batman hasnt created any of those criminals....they created him.

If you say Batman will allow himself, or even worse, an innocent to die just to uphold what you believe constitutes his moral code, then you have a lot of explaining to do.

Allow himself to die.....possible.

Allow someone else to die ....no.

But he would feel it was a violation of his code and would turn himself in afterwards.

Note: You can also refer to my scenario in a post on the last page where the Joker leaves Batman with such a choice. Your opinion on that will be interesting.

I couldnt find it.If you wouldnt mind can you please repost it.

I LOL IRL reading this post.

I'm not going to reply to your intire post since your most likely going to tell me that I'm repeating myself but I will answer a few sections......

Unless you can somehow show that Bruce planned for those guys to die and took action to prevent their escape you cant make a convincing argument that he "killed' those guys.

The only action I have to prove is wether he started the fire intentionally......and he did.

What his motivation's were is irrelevant.Those actions in starting the fire are in violation of his code.

At least the comic counterpart would say so.

If they died as a result of the conflict it's collateral damage. Just like if you fire your M16 at some enemies and shoot your own guy, that's collateral damage. There's no intentional collateral damage or unintentional collateral damage, you pulled the trigger and collateral damage occurred. If you pulled the trigger intending for your bullets to hit your own guys it's just called murdering your own troops. If you pulled the trigger trying to hit the bad guys and just happened to hit your own guys (or they ran into your area of fire after the fact) that's collateral damage. Whether Batman set the fire or not doesn't matter in defining this term. If he set it and guys simply didn't get themselves out it's collateral damage. If he set it as some sort of trap then that's murder. Not much wiggle room there if you dont like it call it something else in your arguments dont call it collateral damage.

And in your scenario lies the answer to this debate.

Comic's batman would have never pulled that trigger in the first place.

Those that died in the fire did not die because they didnt "simply didn't get themselves out" they were rendered unable to do so by the fire.

It doent matter wether he intended that they die or run.The lost of life was foreseeable and by that allone Batman killed those guys.

Remember that this thread is about the movie. But even if you're going to reference the comics, realize that if you're going to conjecture on a precise hypothetical situation that Batman has actually never faced in the comics, it's illogical to talk about a different(however similar) situation he faced and what he did there. To my knowledge there has never been a situation where Batman faced the dilemma that magus proposes. He's always been in a similar but soundly different situation (with a 3rd option). For this specific discussion with TWO and only two options, what Batman did in that other situation is NOT predictive, for obvious reasons I'm sure you understand.

ALSO understand that the comics themselves are not predictive. Characters can change... when Batman first started he did not have a code. He carried a gun. Farthermore as the character developed and new writers and editors came on board he increasingly took on the characteristics of Doc Savage and the Blue Beetle. And in the 60s and 70s he even took on characteristics of 007. Ra's al Ghul is himself a reflection of the popularity of Ian Fleming-style international masterminds of that period. Think of a Batman fan from the 60s who grew up not only with the campy TV show but the comics themselves which were very bright and cheesy. I guarantee you that transplanted to 2008 they would not recognize the character, they certainly would be totally ignorant of an idea of Batman without Robin. Is this to say that writers are going to change Batman's code any time soon? No of course not, but realize that interpretations of the character can and WILL change. Especially in a different medium there has to been room for interpretation of the character. In other words talking about the movie and saying "but but comics..." doesn't constitute a logical or convincing argument when it comes to Batman's actions in the movies. Nor does confusing personal preference and opinion for finality concerning the issue.

You must have been misunderstanding me all this time.

I've simply been talking about this issue as a comparison bases.

I've been comparing the differences between both Batmen.The very different mediums and the differences in the characters.

 

[magus]

Its impossible to really answer that question under the terms you put foward.

One you want me to answer the question useing everything I know about the comic book Batman but at the same time you want me limit Batmans actions to not relying on skills,resources or his uncanny ability to come up with a 3rd option.

And two the question is a bit redundant since the circumstances is open to the writters interpretation of the character.

Your question contradicts itself.

But as I already pointed out, time and time again, Comic's Batman has been put into that kind of situation and every time his solution was to come up with a 3rd option.

That proves at the very least that he would be un-willing to take the option that leads to a persons death.

Absolutely incorrect. If there was a 3rd option then it wasn't the same scenario. It isn't that Batman magically creates a 3rd option, but that the scenario had a multitude of options available and Batman used his skills and resources to find it. I am posing a situation in which no such 3rd option exists for Batman to find through his skills and resources.

And AGAIN, instead of answering the question you are dancing around the issue. Batman has NEVER been in this same situation and there is no contradiction in what we can see in the Batman of the comics and this scenario. ANY belief system can be applied to it and if Batman's moral code is as black and white as you want to claim it is, then the answer should be easy to come up with. Your inability (poised as unwillingness) to extend Batman's moral code to a scenario without precedent in the comics exposes an inherent weakness in your understanding of either Batman's code or modal logic. What choice does Batman make when he has to either kill a criminal placing him in immediate danger or die? And which does he make when he has to kill a criminal placing an innocent life in danger or the innocent will die?

Now your trying to argue a un-proveable issue.

Batman for the most part tempers his blows knowing just how hard a person can be hit.

But to answer your question batman would feel that he broke his code.

Durring the "Armageddon 2001" event they told a possible Batman future story that explains this.

It was set a few years into the future in which Batman and the Penguin were about 15 [or more] years older.

The Penguin died in the fight while trying to kill Batman and some woman.He died of an apparent heart attack and Batman felt he broke his code because he felt he should have considered that the Penguin had reached the age in which he couldnt partake in such a fight.

Batman allowed himself to be arrest ,tried and found quitly, and sentenced to death for his crime of murder.

Turns out that it was really a trap from the Joker but the simple fact that he was about to allow himself to be executed for thinking he killed the Penguin proves my point.

1. That series is an alternate reality (well many realities as I understand it).
2. You do realize that in that exact same crossover Batman killed Superman on purpose, right? Explain that one.

If you want to say Batman would allow himself to die rather than kill to save his own life, then just say it and defend it. You are most of the way there but instead of just answering the scenario I gave you you keep avoiding it.

How do you figure???

The choice in one person becoming a police officer does not mean that there will be an increase in the amount or criminals on the street.

Invalid point. Batman is not a police officer. He specifically chose to be a symbol so that he could be more than just a cop.

As a matter of fact considering the public outlook of the city it would seem that Batman prescience actually reduced crime in the city and inspired other do help out in that cause.

Absolutely unfounded. Show me a modern interpretation of Batman (current canon) that shows Gotham getting better immediately after Batman's presence rather than getting worse first.

The escalation in the type of pysco's that Batman attracts was like wise unforeseeable.

If you punch someone in the face what do you expect to happen? For him to hit you right back, as hard, if not harder. The theme of escalation is present not only in Nolan's films but throughout Batman. Things ALWAYS get worse before they get better and there is little reason why Batman shouldn't have been able to see that.

How is it foreseeable that a person that decides to make himself a symble of justice would inspire the dreads of society to do the same for for means of destroying society.

Repeat of above.

The only thing you can really say is that continuing to be Batman he can foresee a continued escalation of the type of insane people like the Joker but not at the beginning of his carrier as Batman.

But at this point that damage has already been done.

Then his decision to continue, knowing the consequences, deliberately puts others' lives in danger and violates his moral code. "The damage already being done" is not an excuse for Batman to continue projecting and escalating this symbol; it will create more villain escalation and an increasing tally of deaths, for which Batman is responsible for by your logic. He made a deliberate decision to continue utilizing his symbol knowing that it has created and escalated the problem and that it will continue to do so. How is that in any way different or less certain than Bruce lighting a dojo on fire to escape with his life?

I dont see it that way and for one reason.

The wicked and evil dont need any reason to behave wicked and evil.

These people will always be around...they were around Before Batman and will continue to be around after Batman.

None of these criminals were really created by Batman.

In the long run many of these bad guys have simular origins to Batman.They all suffered a great tragic event .....but unlike Batman they all turned it inwards and feel that the world owes them something and they feel like getting some payback.

They take up the feeling that if they have to suffer then the world has to suffer.

Batman on the other hand to his tragic event and decides to do something about it.To give back to a world that has done nothing but take from him.

To make sure no one else has to suffer what he had to.

Batman hasnt created any of those criminals....they created him.

If you concede that the creation of Batman caused escalation, which you did, then any villain that arises during Batman's legacy is his responsibility. The whole "arrival of the freaks" that occurs after Batman comes around is proof of that. Batman was made by the violent acts of your everyday criminal, but he created the super villains; none of them were around before he was.

Allow himself to die.....possible.

Allow someone else to die ....no.

But he would feel it was a violation of his code and would turn himself in afterwards.

NOW we're actually getting somewhere. This isn't quite a full answer but you are inching closer to it. Try expanding on this and actually convincing me that Batman's moral code will be violated by killing a criminal placing an innocent in immediate danger. Is Batman JUSTIFIED (by his moral code) in doing so? If not, is he justified in allowing the innocent to die to uphold his moral code? Would that in itself be a violation of the code? Go deeper.

 

[Finlandman]

I believe that Batman would sacrifice himself even for a crook.

 

[The Guard]

He has. Ed Brubaker showed it most recently.

 

[bonesawmcgraw]

Oh crap, I thought this was a thread for my biggest complaint of the film: Batman falling from large heights too plenty times. Anyhow, yes, through Batman's eyes, Dent was saving him and was his chance for freedom. In a way, Batman returned the favor for also, don't forget that Dent posed as Batman to help not only save others from dying, but to save Wayne from making a mistake by even thinking of surrendering himself to The Joker's plot. I'm happy that Batman made that decision but, one could argue that although Dent did seem to be the villain, he did technically kill anyone apart from those who weren't responsible for his fiance's death. If you think of it, he wasn't really a villain full-circle. I think of him as The Punisher in a way because he doesn't kill anyone apart from those who were responsible for the horrible thing that happened to him.

Yeah like Jim Gordon and his family right?

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Absolutely incorrect. If there was a 3rd option then it wasn't the same scenario. It isn't that Batman magically creates a 3rd option, but that the scenario had a multitude of options available and Batman used his skills and resources to find it. I am posing a situation in which no such 3rd option exists for Batman to find through his skills and resources.

As I said I couldnt fint the situation that you presented so I really cant comment on the one your talking about.

But as I said......its a close to impossible question to answer because the writter can interpret the character in any way he/she wants.

As for the situation in the movie and starting the fire......Even I can see at least 1 different way to have gotten out of that one with out setting a fire in a room with explosives.

It may not have worked as well thou.

Batman has NEVER been in this same situation and there is no contradiction in what we can see in the Batman of the comics and this scenario.

Comic Batman has been in that situation in the past.But I have to admit he ended up killing in those situations.Granted those stories were ether at the beginning of his publication history or in stories that are considered out of continuity.

ANY belief system can be applied to it and if Batman's moral code is as black and white as you want to claim it is, then the answer should be easy to come up with. Your inability (poised as unwillingness) to extend Batman's moral code to a scenario without precedent in the comics exposes an inherent weakness in your understanding of either Batman's code or modal logic.

I'm not really having any problem with understanding ether Batman his code or logic.

You continue to miss my point however.

What choice does Batman make when he has to either kill a criminal placing him in immediate danger or die? And which does he make when he has to kill a criminal placing an innocent life in danger or the innocent will die?

Your placing him in a no win situation.

As I said before a few times.He would do what he needs to.Even if it ment killing.But even he would feel that it broke his code.

I never said he was incapable of acting against his moral code.But he would still reconise that he broke his code and would seek punishment for it.

1. That series is an alternate reality (well many realities as I understand it).

Yes I am.

2. You do realize that in that exact same crossover Batman killed Superman on purpose, right? Explain that one.

What is there to explain.As I said if there was absolute need he would kill....but even he would know that it was breaking his moral code.

Maybe your getting my post mixed up with others or your reading more into my post then I'm really saying.

I didnt say he would never break his code if he had to.....only that if he did he would be awaer that it was a violation of that code.

What you have been saying is that if there was need he would kill and it would be within the scope of his code.

And thats where I disagree.

If he had to kill to save others..........he would.But even he would feel that it was a violation of the code he lived by and would seek out punishment by one means or an other.

Even after killing Sup's in that story he implyed that he was done with everything.

If you want to say Batman would allow himself to die rather than kill to save his own life, then just say it and defend it. You are most of the way there but instead of just answering the scenario I gave you you keep avoiding it. \

As I said I'm not avoiding it I cant find it.

But to answer the question you just asked....I do think he would rather die then kill to protect him self.

But I'll admit its a hard one to prove.Its just how I feel the character would act.

I'll give you a scenario and how I think it would play out.

Lets say that a bad guy left a gun on the floor with in reach of Batman and Bats has none of his equipment and is about 2 blocks away from the bad guy.

The bad guy has also rigged an explosive into Batman's with a 5 second time limit.

The bad guy tells Batman that if he doesn't pick up the gun and kill him [the bad guy] in 5 seconds that he [Batman] will explode.

I dont see Batman killing an other just to save himself.

Invalid point. Batman is not a police officer. He specifically chose to be a symbol so that he could be more than just a cop.

Its not invalid because the situation is the same.The choice of one person chosing to fight for justice.

Absolutely unfounded. Show me a modern interpretation of Batman (current canon) that shows Gotham getting better immediately after Batman's presence rather than getting worse first.

And what do you consider modern canon????

For me it would have to be the retelling of his origins in "BATMAN YEAR 1" by Frank Miller.And even in that story after Batman came on the scene there was a marked drop in crime and coruption.And the public felt a bit safer.

And even after Batman begins it looks like Gotham went threw a simular period.

The crooks were scared.Batman inspired the public and the police.

If there was an other retelling of his origins that really went into the depth of the character since YEAR 1 then ether I havent read it yet.

There was a few years that I was out of the comic loop.

If you punch someone in the face what do you expect to happen? For him to hit you right back, as hard, if not harder. The theme of escalation is present not only in Nolan's films but throughout Batman. Things ALWAYS get worse before they get better and there is little reason why Batman shouldn't have been able to see that.

And again......illogic is unforeseeable.Yes I'm sure he expected to be fought back at every turn but logic would dictate that they would strike back with in there means.

I doubt that many if any would have been able to predict the type of insanity that has since sprung up.

The like's of the Joker and the rest of his demented rouges were at least in the begining a radom factor.How could anyone assume that the existence of one guy in a suit fighting crime would attract the hords of insanity to him.

And even in Nolan's Bat-verse who could really predict that the scared crooks would turn to a crazxed physco for help???

You and I can sit here and say it was predictible because we know and understand this universe.

But to the characters within that universe that kind of insight does not exist.

Even Alfred...who in his past encountered some one a demented as Joker didnt foresee the Jokers comming.

Then his decision to continue, knowing the consequences, deliberately puts others' lives in danger and violates his moral code. "The damage already being done" is not an excuse for Batman to continue projecting and escalating this symbol; it will create more villain escalation and an increasing tally of deaths, for which Batman is responsible for by your logic. He made a deliberate decision to continue utilizing his symbol knowing that it has created and escalated the problem and that it will continue to do so. How is that in any way different or less certain than Bruce lighting a dojo on fire to escape with his life?

Its really not any different.And I agree with "The damage already being done" is not an excuse but as I said its to late.

Quiting wouldnt change anything or make it any better.If he were to quit the escalation would continue and for all we know multiply ten fold

By continuing to be batman he creates a balance.

If you concede that the creation of Batman caused escalation, which you did,

When did I do that?????I'm not doubting you.I was pretty zonked out when I wrote my last post but I dont remember saying that.

then any villain that arises during Batman's legacy is his responsibility. The whole "arrival of the freaks" that occurs after Batman comes around is proof of that. Batman was made by the violent acts of your everyday criminal, but he created the super villains; none of them were around before he was.

That depend on wether were talking about the comics or the movies.In the comics there were super villains long before there was a Batman.

And in the long run super villains arent really any different then everyday criminals.They have other abilities and use them for crime but thats it.

Batman didnt really have a hand in creating them any more then any everyday crook.

At best he showed them how to put on a snazzy costume but thats really it.

If not for the costumes they would all still be useing there abilities to be better crooks anyway with or with out Batman.

You wouldnt blame a track coach for teaching a runner to run fast if that runner later turned out to be a purse snacher would you????

He would just be useing his abilities.

At best Batman only taught these guys how to dress.

About the only super villain I can think of that can be said may have been partly created by Batman would be Two Face.

And the way I see it that guy had problems long before Batman was ever around.

NOW we're actually getting somewhere.

Glad to impress you.

This isn't quite a full answer but you are inching closer to it. Try expanding on this and actually convincing me that Batman's moral code will be violated by killing a criminal placing an innocent in immediate danger.Is Batman JUSTIFIED (by his moral code) in doing so? If not, is he justified in allowing the innocent to die to uphold his moral code? Would that in itself be a violation of the code? Go deeper

How do I prove that to you.

About all I could do is tell you what I feel and why.

As I said when he thought he killed the Penguin while trying to save a woman and himself he turned himself in and was ready to except what ever punishment delt him.

To me that shows that even if he killed to save an other he would feel it violated his code.

Even in the cartoon [Batman Beyond] when he pulled a gun on a bad guy to protect himself he felt it violated his code and he quit being Batman.

Granted he didnt kill anyone but the idea of threating to take a life was so distasteful to him that he quit.

When he thought that Dick Grayson was killed in lasts years [or the year before] Crisis event he pulled a gun on Alex Luther [earth 3 pre coie].

Afterwards he felt like he was having a break down and took a year off to find himself.

To me all this points to the fact that if Batman had to kill for what ever reason he would feel that it violated his code.

 

[magus]

As I said I couldnt fint the situation that you presented so I really cant comment on the one your talking about.

I am referring to the scenario I have been posing the entire time: what would Batman do when the choices are kill or be killed? The scenario I mentioned for you to look for was just a more specific version of that. You did finally address it later in your post which is a big step forward in extending the application of Batman's code.

But as I said......its a close to impossible question to answer because the writter can interpret the character in any way he/she wants.

Writer's can interpret the character how they want, but does that then mean they can interpret the code as well? I mean some authors already have, with you pointing out the extreme of maintaining the literal "no killing" at all cost and myself pointing out situations when the character has shown that there may be exceptions.

If you can say "yes, they can interpret the code," then isn't it a valid interpretation to have exceptions to Batman's moral code? If it isn't acceptable to have exceptions, then what else could possibly be interpreted differently about it? The point about different interpretations becomes moot if it is invalid for the writers to interpret the code as having exceptions and we can utilize Batman's code in any situation because it is uniform throughout all interpretations of the character regardless of any other changes in characteristics.

As for the situation in the movie and starting the fire......Even I can see at least 1 different way to have gotten out of that one with out setting a fire in a room with explosives.

It may not have worked as well thou.

We can all come up with alternate ways for almost any scene to go and most of them will be absurd: he could have attempted to take Ra's hostage (and gotten his ass beat), he could have thrown a couple smoke bombs (and gotten his ass beat), the farmer could have had a heart attack and died anyway (downplaying the moral choice Bruce had to make), and many more.

If you want to hold Batman morally responsible for every single action he takes that has foreseeable death consequences then he has violated it countless times and should honestly cease to be able to function as Batman. Batman is the type that considers EVERY possible option and scenario far in advance: he has dreamed up ways of escaping every possible torture technique, twenty different ways to disable a man from one position (with usually a couple lethal ways, though he doesn't use them); he KNOWS the consequences of nearly EVERY action he takes, including becoming Batman to begin with.

Being Batman endangers anyone close to him, yet he continuously takes on proteges. Did Batman break his moral code when Jason Todd was killed? Regardless of the fact that Joker dealt the blow didn't Batman create a situation through action (training Jason Todd) that put Jason Todd (and the other Robins as well) in OBVIOUSLY FORESEEABLE danger? That is your logic for the fire scene: that Batman placed those ninjas into foreseeable danger through his actions and any of their deaths would be a violation, so by the same extension the death of Jason Todd was a violation of his moral code. We all want to say that Batman feels responsible for his death and greatly regrets the choice he made, but was it a violation of his "no killing" code?

Comic Batman has been in that situation in the past.But I have to admit he ended up killing in those situations.Granted those stories were ether at the beginning of his publication history or in stories that are considered out of continuity.

If those stories are out of continuity then they don't pertain to discussion, so Batman has never been in a situation as described previously.
If we count those stories in the discussion, then ALL non-continuity has to be allowed.

Your placing him in a no win situation.

As I said before a few times.He would do what he needs to.Even if it ment killing.But even he would feel that it broke his code.

I never said he was incapable of acting against his moral code.But he would still reconise that he broke his code and would seek punishment for it.


What is there to explain.As I said if there was absolute need he would kill....but even he would know that it was breaking his moral code.

This I have a problem with. If he needs to, then the act is justified within his moral code; he wouldn't need to if there wasn't an acceptable reason, meaning that in this case the ends justify the means. If you try to say that he needs to do something AND that it is against his code, then there is a contradiction within Batman's moral code: he has sworn to do everything in his power to save others and serve justice EXCEPT kill. If we don't allow exceptions to one part of this (either the killing in certain situations part OR doing everything in his power to save someone), then everything falls apart. He can't possibly exist as Batman with that inherent contradiction in his code.

I'd also just like to comment on the bold: simply being Batman is a no-win situation. Batman will always personally suffer and he will NEVER truly complete his mission, just alleviate the problem while he is around. Even if he hands down the mantle, Batman will never completely succeed. The best he can hope for is inspiring a few more people to become like himself or Jim Gordon.

Maybe your getting my post mixed up with others or your reading more into my post then I'm really saying.

It is possible I am mixing together posts from you and Motown, and any confusion that results from that, I apologize for, but I do feel I am covering the same situation between both of you.

I didnt say he would never break his code if he had to.....only that if he did he would be awaer that it was a violation of that code.

What you have been saying is that if there was need he would kill and it would be within the scope of his code.

And thats where I disagree.

If he had to kill to save others..........he would.But even he would feel that it was a violation of the code he lived by and would seek out punishment by one means or an other.

Even after killing Sup's in that story he implyed that he was done with everything.

What I said above. If it is truly necessary to kill someone, then it is justified. If you say it is unjustified within his code, then he didn't need to do it OR there is a contradiction within his code: saving people and serving justice at all costs except killing and needing to kill in order to save people and serve justice. If we can't justify either possibility, Batman killing out of necessity to save others or Batman allowing the death of innocents to protect his morality, then Batman is f***ed. The only inbetweens are incidental killings, which you claim are still a violation of his code.

This is VERY tricky ground right here and I want to tread lightly. I honestly am not trying to push my viewpoint, that killing out of necessity to save is justifiable, though regrettable, as much as I want to clarify it, and push those who disagree to clarify their opinion.

As I said I'm not avoiding it I cant find it.

But to answer the question you just asked....I do think he would rather die then kill to protect him self.

But I'll admit its a hard one to prove.Its just how I feel the character would act.

I'll give you a scenario and how I think it would play out.

Lets say that a bad guy left a gun on the floor with in reach of Batman and Bats has none of his equipment and is about 2 blocks away from the bad guy.

The bad guy has also rigged an explosive into Batman's with a 5 second time limit.

The bad guy tells Batman that if he doesn't pick up the gun and kill him [the bad guy] in 5 seconds that he [Batman] will explode.

I dont see Batman killing an other just to save himself.

I can accept your opinion on this scenario and agree that in certain situations of kill or be killed Batman may choose the latter. I'd also argue that depending on when in Batman's career we are discussing and the events around that specific time, Batman may choose the former.

Its not invalid because the situation is the same.The choice of one person chosing to fight for justice.

No it isn't. If you say it is then you are saying that Batman is equivalent to a police officer and I doubt anyone that knows Batman, as you do, would ever say Batman is the same as a cop.

And what do you consider modern canon????

For me it would have to be the retelling of his origins in "BATMAN YEAR 1" by Frank Miller.And even in that story after Batman came on the scene there was a marked drop in crime and coruption.And the public felt a bit safer.

And even after Batman begins it looks like Gotham went threw a simular period.

The crooks were scared.Batman inspired the public and the police.

If there was an other retelling of his origins that really went into the depth of the character since YEAR 1 then ether I havent read it yet.

There was a few years that I was out of the comic loop.

Year One is exactly what I am talking about. There is no inspired public, Gordon, yes, public, no. The ending is Gordon's son almost getting killed and then it jumps to him on a rooftop talking about the arrival of the Joker. That is the very coming of the freaks, escalation, that Batman has caused IMMEDIATELY present in Gotham after Year One.

Its really not any different.And I agree with "The damage already being done" is not an excuse but as I said its to late.

Quiting wouldnt change anything or make it any better.If he were to quit the escalation would continue and for all we know multiply ten fold

By continuing to be batman he creates a balance.

Your logic, that every act that leads to killing violates the code, is deontological, meaning that it evaluates the morality of the act itself without considering the results. If you say that Batman can knowingly put others in danger through his persistence of the Batman persona, then you have to reevaluate your past statements about his moral code as a utilitarian, taking into account the ends as well as the means.

When did I do that?????I'm not doubting you.I was pretty zonked out when I wrote my last post but I dont remember saying that.

You did. Take another look.

That depend on wether were talking about the comics or the movies.In the comics there were super villains long before there was a Batman.

And in the long run super villains arent really any different then everyday criminals.They have other abilities and use them for crime but thats it.

Batman didnt really have a hand in creating them any more then any everyday crook.

At best he showed them how to put on a snazzy costume but thats really it.

If not for the costumes they would all still be useing there abilities to be better crooks anyway with or with out Batman.

You wouldnt blame a track coach for teaching a runner to run fast if that runner later turned out to be a purse snacher would you????

He would just be useing his abilities.

At best Batman only taught these guys how to dress.

About the only super villain I can think of that can be said may have been partly created by Batman would be Two Face.

And the way I see it that guy had problems long before Batman was ever around.

I'll agree about Two-Face, but your theory of Supervillains is absolutely wrong: they aren't just criminals in capes, they go beyond the ethical and practical scope of all normal criminals, that's what makes them SUPER.

How do I prove that to you.

About all I could do is tell you what I feel and why.

As I said when he thought he killed the Penguin while trying to save a woman and himself he turned himself in and was ready to except what ever punishment delt him.

To me that shows that even if he killed to save an other he would feel it violated his code.

Even in the cartoon [Batman Beyond] when he pulled a gun on a bad guy to protect himself he felt it violated his code and he quit being Batman.

Granted he didnt kill anyone but the idea of threating to take a life was so distasteful to him that he quit.

When he thought that Dick Grayson was killed in lasts years [or the year before] Crisis event he pulled a gun on Alex Luther [earth 3 pre coie].

Afterwards he felt like he was having a break down and took a year off to find himself.

To me all this points to the fact that if Batman had to kill for what ever reason he would feel that it violated his code.

To the bold: Logic. I will respond more when I get back from work.

 

[The Guard]

This is priceless. "Collateral damage" and "Tackling someone over the edge of a building" aren't quite the same.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Of course you take a cop-out instead of engaging in any type of real thought or discussion. Basically all you are able to say at this point is "Batman has never had to make this choice and never will because the writers won't allow it". Your inability and/or unwillingness to answer the questions implies that you are either:

1. Afraid to admit the answer

2. Are unable to think up a response

We use hypothetical scenarios to test the logic and limits of a set of beliefs, which is what I am doing with Batman's code but you would rather dance around the question than actually come up with something worthwhile to say.

how is that a cop out? in your perfefctly ridiculous scenario that you've given, its a perfectly reasonable option on how to resolve the issue without killing or being killed. it'd be more of a cop out to ignore possibilities outside of killing.

This much I agree with. It absolutely is harder to not kill, which is what makes Batman so intriguing. In light of that, I think it would be fascinating to see how it would affect him if he HAD to kill. Use the word "contrived" as much as you want, but that is always a POSSIBLE scenario. The lack of a situation like this (that I know of) means the writers HAVEN'T fully explored the idea, and honestly they never will; that isn't a put down on what they have done because I obviously love Batman, but there is always more to explore with an moral code like Batman's.

For one it is that he will never make the CHOICE to kill (which may be excepted in a scenario like I have provided), not that any action he ever does will never result in a death, which is more in like with what Sto-vo-kor is trying to say. I am not sure if you agree with him on that.

you keep bringing up some hypothetical ridiculous fantasy situation (which you have yet to provide) where batman has no other choice but to kill. and even if he were forced to kill (im not saying he would) whats the point of that? if its forced, its not of his free will, its not a CHOICE. he didnt choose to kill. whats the point of that? it doesnt add anything to the character. it doesnt accomplish anything. it doesnt do anything to define him. theres no profound philosophical revelations there. batman didnt choose to do anything in that situation. the choice was made for him. and thats pretty stupid. and you want to know how it'd affect him? he's be grumpy about it. thats all. he'd be mad, he'd feel bad, and he'd go back to fighting crime. it'd be pointless and hollow. your trying to concoct some ridiculous and convulted scenario under the guise of philosophical intent, but its just bulls#!t shock value that serves little to no purpose to character or story.

You keep saying contrived as if it is a negative and surprising quality to me; the very definition of a hypothetical situation is that it is contrived. If you feel I am unjustified in stating that Batman would kill in the scenario kill or be killed, then prove it using logic rather than stating that the writers have set no precedent for the situation or that they will always find a way around it; just pure logic and reasoning. I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that modern Batman would kill rather than allow himself or an innocent to be killed if it was the only means.

contrivences ARE a negative thing! im talking about movies and/or comic books. they tell stories, hopefully quality stories. and quality stories have little to no room for contrived situations.

and you are unjustified in stating batman would kill. and the logic for that comes straight from the character who has sworn he'd never take a life. it's been the cornerstone of his character for decades. and please, i implore you to give me all this evidence you have gathered that goes to show batman would kill.

There should be no doubt that Miller's Batman would do it, but you will just say it isn't canon;

it isnt canon. except for year one. which doesnt help your case.

which also means that I can say that anything from Golden or Silver Age Batman (pre-Crisis) isn't canon either because we only follow modern Batman.

true.

"Hush," which was pretty recent and canon, had Batman come *this* close to killing the Joker, only to be stopped by Gordon.

theres no way of knowing if batman would have actually killed him when the time came. he was pissed, yes. but its entirely likely batman would lay off when the time came to deliver that killing blow. sort of, i dunno, just like the dude on the boat in the movie who said he'd push the button.

Just because Batman does not want to choose to take another man's life doesn't mean that he wouldn't if the situation absolutely called for it. The writers make sure the situation doesn't, but that doesn't make a hypothetical situation impossible.

batman has chosen not to kill. so he hasnt. you keep talking about situations that would absolutely call for it. but you cant give one. more than likely, any situation like that would come off as terribly contrived for the sake of shock value. and thats not quality story telling. and quality story telling is far more important than this fetish you seem to have with wanting to see batman kill.

I agree with that as well. Fortunately that situation doesn't even qualify as a test. Batman's actions led to an incidental (read: not intended. Wootbaby has explained this point more thoroughly) death while trying to save the boy. While Batman may feel bad about it, it isn't even close to making the DECISION of killing a man.

yes, because batman is too stupid to know that tackling a man off a ledge might kill him? please.

I am asking you a very simple question (though apparently not simple for you to answer) and instead of providing a response you are dancing around it.

im not dancing around anything. sorry if i dont agree with you opinions that have no base to them.

Go ahead and make some pithy remark about how my "contrived scenario doesn't deserve a full response" or some BS. It just reflects poorly on your ability to reason.

???

If you make a valid point about Batman's decision in the scenario KILL OR BE KILLED with no other options, then I will concede.

clearly you wouldnt.

But avoiding the question altogether and claiming that you are above it, or that my question is below you (which is what you are implying when you say that it is "contrived and hollow") is not helping discussion.

i havent avoided anything. i've responded to everything straight forward. dont be mad because i dont agree with you. i havent put myself above anything. and im not implying anything when saying your scenarios are contrived or hollow. im saying it because thats what they are. you even admitted yourself they are because according to you, thats what hypothetical situations are suppose to be. so dont blame me for that.

How does Batman's moral code apply to the situations of kill or be killed and kill or an innocent will be killed? If it makes it easier, consider it just a hypothetical in Bruce's mind: he is debating internally what he would do if such a situation should ever arise, however unlikely. Is he willing to take a life or will he allow himself to be struck down or allow an innocent to die to preserve his own morality? Surely such a hypothetical situation, relegated to thought bubbles, isn't out of line.

we're talking about in batman's mind? batman would have himself convinced that he could find a way out of it. because thats how batman's mind works. you may see that as a cop out, or illogical, but batman isnt always the most logical man, and thats just how his mind works. he doesnt want to accept the idea of ever having to take a life and so he convinces himself that he's good enough to not resolve that situation without killing or dying. thats not avoiding your question, but thats honestly what batman's thought bubbles would be thinking. because the character doesnt accept the idea of him having to kill, so natuarally his thought process would reflect as much.

Now will you say something worthwhile or just find another work-around?

see above. though, im pretty sure at this point, you'd consider anyone who has anything differing from your opinion not to be worthwhile.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I think it's obvious the ending doesn't fit together quite right given how long this thread is and how heated the discussion has been =P Besides the "fall" of Batman which some may see as unnecessary (yes, I lean that way) there is the massive issue of Batman killing Harvey that the movie just ignored. And a whole lot of fans who like to pretend it was an accident or that he had no choice. Of course he had a choice and it wasn't an accident. (You can listen to the creativescreenwritingmagazine.com interview with Jonah Nolan to confirm that it wasn't written as an accident) And he always had other choices. What, is Batman suddenly out of batarangs to knock that gun out from his hand? Or he couldn't negotiate him out of it? (he didn't even try) He couldn't take off his mask in front of Harvey and talk to him? (Boy, that would have been a surprise!) There are always other choices.

 

[bunk]

He couldn't take off his mask in front of Harvey and talk to him? (Boy, that would have been a surprise!) There are always other choices.

I'm really glad he didn't do that though. I can just see Gordon now; "And Bruce Wayne...why are you dressed up like Batman?" Gordon's son: "Because he is Batman, you moron!"

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I'm really glad he didn't do that though. I can just see Gordon now; "And Bruce Wayne...why are you dressed up like Batman?" Gordon's son: "Because he is Batman, you moron!"

Ah, good times. I loved that bit =)

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

If you want to hold Batman morally responsible for every single action he takes that has foreseeable death consequences then he has violated it countless times and should honestly cease to be able to function as Batman. Batman is the type that considers EVERY possible option and scenario far in advance: he has dreamed up ways of escaping every possible torture technique, twenty different ways to disable a man from one position (with usually a couple lethal ways, though he doesn't use them); he KNOWS the consequences of nearly EVERY action he takes, including becoming Batman to begin with.

Being Batman endangers anyone close to him, yet he continuously takes on proteges. Did Batman break his moral code when Jason Todd was killed? Regardless of the fact that Joker dealt the blow didn't Batman create a situation through action (training Jason Todd) that put Jason Todd (and the other Robins as well) in OBVIOUSLY FORESEEABLE danger? That is your logic for the fire scene: that Batman placed those ninjas into foreseeable danger through his actions and any of their deaths would be a violation, so by the same extension the death of Jason Todd was a violation of his moral code. We all want to say that Batman feels responsible for his death and greatly regrets the choice he made, but was it a violation of his "no killing" code?

I must admit that this section [above] gave me some new things to think about.

If those stories are out of continuity then they don't pertain to discussion, so Batman has never been in a situation as described previously.
If we count those stories in the discussion, then ALL non-continuity has to be allowed.

Include them all.A writer can inject any point of view he has into any story he wants to tell anyway.

This I have a problem with. If he needs to, then the act is justified within his moral code; he wouldn't need to if there wasn't an acceptable reason, meaning that in this case the ends justify the means.

Not really because not every need must be met.

Now I'n not only talking about taking or saving a life but in my opinion "the ends justify the means" should never be used as a rule of thumb.

And in my opinion Batman wouldnt forgive him self if he had to take a life to save a life.

I can accept your opinion on this scenario and agree that in certain situations of kill or be killed Batman may choose the latter. I'd also argue that depending on when in Batman's career we are discussing and the events around that specific time, Batman may choose the former.

I guess thats also possible.

No it isn't. If you say it is then you are saying that Batman is equivalent to a police officer and I doubt anyone that knows Batman, as you do, would ever say Batman is the same as a cop.

Your misunderstanding me again.

I'm saying the situations are simular not the people.

Meaning that a choice in a person to become a cop does not mean its foreseeable that there will be more crooks as a result.

Or a choice in a person to become a teacher does not meen its foreseeable that there will be more students as a result

Or the choice in a person becoming a Doctor does not mean it is forseeable that their will be more sick people as a result.

The same holds true for Batman.It was not imidiately forseeable that by becoming a symble for Justice that there would be an escalation of those trying to bring justice to a halt.

Year One is exactly what I am talking about. There is no inspired public, Gordon, yes, public, no.

When was the last time you read it???

Took at chapter 2.....the section where Batman interrupts that dinner between Police Commissioner Loeb.

There are two lines that prove my point.

Loeb to Gordan on the phone:

yes Lieutenant,I'm well aware of how many laws the vigilante is breaking.But there are 2 sides to everything arent there????
Yes there are....and Batman is having a positive effect on the public spirit....or havent you noticed the drop in streat crimes these past weeks?????

Loeb to his guest:

2 sides of everything friendsLook at the long term.A few street operators are put out of action,YES....but the people of Gotham City have a Hero.Makes them feel safe.And the safer they feel,the fewer questions they ask

You did. Take another look.

I still dont see it.

I'll agree about Two-Face, but your theory of Supervillains is absolutely wrong: they aren't just criminals in capes, they go beyond the ethical and practical scope of all normal criminals, that's what makes them SUPER.

Because they are all mentally damaged.

A variation of what I said earlier applys.

With or with out Batman they would be just as sick.