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

[magus]

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.

It is a cop out because you are not following the rules of the exercise. It is a HYPOTHETICAL situation. I am asking you to apply Batman's solid moral code to a hypothetical situation. The likeliness and even the possibility of the situation is COMPLETELY irrelevant. All that matters is Batman's code + Logic = what does Batman choose when the situation is to kill or be killed, or an alternate situation of kill or allow an innocent to be killed. This isn't me trying to provoke people into saying something they don't want to, or to even convince someone of a certain point of view; I don't even necessarily believe that Batman would kill in the first scenario, at least not certain interpretations of him. Your inability to think in the abstract is astounding and I am surprised you haven't just said, "but none of this matters, Batman isn't real".

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.

I don't have to provide the specifics of the scenario, they are irrelevant. All that matters is IF ever presented with such a choice, and it is a choice, what would Batman do. Some have already said Batman would allow himself to die rather than kill, and I concede to that point under certain criteria, I just want logic to be used instead of saying "just because".

I am not "forcing" Batman to kill; I am merely placing him into a hypothetical situation that tests the limits of his moral code. He most definitely can choose not to kill and many people, including me, think that is true under certain circumstances. There is no guise or shock value (which is a terribly inappropriate term. Who am I shocking? Why would I shock them?) and I am not telling a Batman story, so I see no need for the scenario to be pertinent to a story that doesn't exist.

I am attempting to extricate exactly what the Batman fan base on this board knows about Batman's moral code and how it could apply to scenarios Batman hasn't faced. There are beneficial reasons to do this:The reflection and research in arguing one's opinion teaches us a great deal about the character; how we feel about and relate to him; and how he might exist in a world outside of the comic world.

I honestly am not trying to "prove" anything definitive about the character other than the hypothesis that Batman's code is not as simple as many portray it to be. To what lengths will he go to preserve his morality? Would he allow himself to die (purely for the moral choice)? Would he allow others to die? These are deep questions that other Super Heroes don't afford us and investigating them is well worth the effort for anyone who appreciates the character. You never once questioned Batman's commitment to his rule and to the extent that it applies?

I want to prompt discussion on this topic. I don't want to badger you for your opinions and I ABSOLUTELY WILL concede to opinions backed up by fact and reasoning. I do not know everything about the character and I can easily name others who have read much more extensively, so I am learning as much as, if not more, than anyone by posing these questions.

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.

I'm not talking about movies or comic books. I am asking how a set of rules applies to a set of choices, that is it. There is no story involved. How does Batman's rule function when the choices are kill or be killed? If the rule is an absolute, then he obviously will be killed. If the rule has exceptions, what are they and why? Would Batman allow an innocent to die to preserve his rule? Would his choice conflict with his mission? These are questions worth exploring and instead of working through them you are talking about how contrived a philosophical scenario is when that is the very definition of a hypothetical situation.

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.

And just how far does that rule extend? Does it only apply to punishment? Does it just mean that Batman will never willingly choose to kill someone? Does it extend to become Batman will never make a choice that could possibly lead to killing someone? It is very easy to interpret the rule as "I won't be an executioner," as opposed to the completely literal. My second presented scenario of would Batman kill or allow an innocent to be killed is much more insightful in that regard and draws into question just how his mission can continue with such a rule or if there must be an exception.

If Batman upholds the absolute literal interpretation of his rule then would he allow an innocent to die rather than kill? Or is there a conflict between rules there? That is a hypothetical choice but one that Batman must have at least had to consider at some point. I find it impossible that someone with his foresight wouldn't have questioned how far he can ethically take this. Which choice could Batman justify? Killing to save a life? Allowing death for refusing to take a life? Both? Neither (which is a valid choice, though I guess Batman would just implode)? These are fantastic questions and I'd love for Batman fans to really think about them and post their responses.

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.

There's no way of actually knowing that he wouldn't have either. We expect that he won't because of his rule (I concede that that is the likely choice, but that doesn't make it the only choice), but maybe something just pushed him over that limit.

The boat scene is a great example but it doesn't negate the possibility that he could have done it. How he'd feel about it afterwards is a completely different matter, but there is plenty of reason to believe he could/would do it. I recommend checking out Batman and Philosophy for a solid discussion on whether or not Batman should kill the Joker, as it depicts a version of the scenario I do and handles it very objectively.

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.

Again, I don't have to. A hypothetical is a hypothetical. The situation isn't illogical, which is all that is required for it to possibly exist. The only situations that can't exist are those that directly contradict and the choices kill, or be killed AND kill or let another be killed do not contradict.

Also, whoever said I wanted to see Batman kill? He could just as easily choose not to kill. I want to know, as precisely as possible, the exact terms of his moral code and these situations give me more information than has been given from other sources. I am not trying to "shock" anyone; I am not asking that a writer make Batman kill someone for any reason, let alone simply for the sake of it. Get the idea of stories out of your head. I am not applying the choice Batman makes to any story (though I think a story about him asking himself these very questions could be interesting), I just want to know what choice he would make in such a set of situations.

Might a STORY written specifically to make Batman choose to kill or die be contrived. Probably. Does that make the question of what he would choose irrelevant? Absolutely not.

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

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

Absolutely an uncalled for comment. You can't even answer a couple "simple" two choice scenarios about a code you claim you know so much about and instead of questioning what you know and how well you know it, you are simply using an ad absurdum argument to try and nullify my questions (which aren't even full-blown opinions because I haven't stated very clearly where I stand on all of these questions).

clearly you wouldnt.

Hostility and rudeness for no reason. I don't devalue your opinions and I would expect for you to at least think about the questions I pose. I am more than open to varrying opinions and do not even have a fully formed opinion of all of this yet. I just know that what everyone has provided is not enough and if you listen to the Jonathan Nolan interview pointed out by another poster, he absoltuely agrees with my questioning and poised much of TDK to do the same.

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.

Contrived and hollow have NOTHING to do with the questions at hand. I want to know exactly what the limits of Batman's code are and while you are free to disagree with my stating the POSSIBILITY of killing being within Batman's code under certain conditions, you haven't even entertained my conjecture while I am fully willing to admit that there are certain hypothetical scenarios like mine in which Batman STILL WOULDN'T KILL. I am completely open-minded to the situation and am asking for you to use LOGIC to state how Batman's rule of "I will not kill" dictates his choice in scenarios in which the choices are "kill or be killed" and "kill or allow an innocent to die". These are EXTREMELY poignant questions and will tell us a great deal about the character if you merely use your facilities to construct a response.

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.

This is much closer to what I am looking for. While not exactly within the rules of the situation it actually applies the type of thinking I am asking for. I find it ludicrous that anyone could believe that there MUST ALWAYS be a situation in which there is an option 3 but it is COMPLETELY VALID (maybe even likely) that Batman would believe there is always an option 3. I concede that Batman may say that, but I still think there is more to be discovered by just making the choice. I truly appreciate this part of your response (all of it actually. As confrontational as I may seem I both respect and appreciate opposition. as long as it doesn't become personal) as that is much higher-level thinking than "Batman said he will never kill". People say a lot of things, but just how literally are we (he) meant to interpret it?

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

My opinion is that we can learn a lot by answering the questions I have posed. That is really it. I acknowledge the possibility that killing could be within Batman's moral code under certain conditions and I am only asking that you help me think through this by answering logical thought exercises. There is nothing misleading or ill-spirited in the scenarios. They are sets of choices that have to be made using the criteria of Batman's rule.

I have not put down your opinions and if it has seemed that way I apologize. I absolutely respect if you don't believe in what I consider a possibility but I do not appreciate you disregarding completely valid methods of disecting and analyzing Batman's moral code. Let's keep it civil, please, and get at some real discussion of Batman's one rule.

 

[magus]

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.

He literally says in the interview "[Batman] isn't trying to kill Harvey Dent".

 

[magus]

Here is a transcribed portion of the aforementioned Jonathan Nolan interview that I think succintly (compared to my long-ass, probably eye-rolling inducing posts, at least) describes exactly what it is I am trying to do in this thread:

Batman is out there doing something that is almost absurd. He is attempting to fight the most vicious, vile, dangerous, hostile criminals without taking life. This is close to a fool's errand but that’s why we love him, right? It’s one of the reasons why his character is so enduring—because of this kind of insane choice he’s made to be SO good at what he does that he can kind of save everyone. And so, of course to me, and everyone has a different take on how to do this, the best way to explore that idea is to challenge it. It’s too easy to just say “I don’t kill people,” right? You have to see that in action and to me the paradox of the idea that he can’t kill the Joker and he isn’t trying to kill Harvey Dent…the paradox at the end is that he has to save the Joker because he has a chance to and Harvey Dent pays the price because he is going to kill an innocent and it’s a conundrum.

I know this long discussion has taken this thread a bit off the topic (sorry BatmanFanatic ) of "Did Batman Need to Fall" onto that of Batman's morality, but I think it is definitely worth discussing and I would love to hear everyone's responses to the scenarios "would Batman kill or be killed," and, "would Batman kill or allow an innocent to die," and how the answers effect his moral code, his mission, and the possible conflicts between them. If necessary I will move the discussion to a new thread so that this one can continue on its intended course. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds to, thinks about, or even reads my posts.

 

[ultimatefan]

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.

So I guess holding Harvey´s hand was only for suspense, then falling WITH Harvey and being almost killed was on purpose too...

 

[The Game]

So I guess holding Harvey´s hand was only for suspense, then falling WITH Harvey and being almost killed was on purpose too...

I thought he was holding the Kids hand

 

[I Am The Knight]

So I guess holding Harvey´s hand was only for suspense, then falling WITH Harvey and being almost killed was on purpose too...

No, Batman tackles Two-Face, and at some point he grabs the kid. When Batman is pulling the kid up for Gordon, you can already see Two-Face on the bottom, "dead." Batman didn't fall until AFTER he handed the kid to Gordon. And he was stupid/weak enough not to use the memory cloth to ease the fall.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Here is a transcribed portion of the aforementioned Jonathan Nolan interview that I think succintly (compared to my long-ass, probably eye-rolling inducing posts, at least) describes exactly what it is I am trying to do in this thread:

Batman is out there doing something that is almost absurd. He is attempting to fight the most vicious, vile, dangerous, hostile criminals without taking life. This is close to a fool's errand but that’s why we love him, right? It’s one of the reasons why his character is so enduring—because of this kind of insane choice he’s made to be SO good at what he does that he can kind of save everyone. And so, of course to me, and everyone has a different take on how to do this, the best way to explore that idea is to challenge it. It’s too easy to just say “I don’t kill people,” right? You have to see that in action and to me the paradox of the idea that he can’t kill the Joker and he isn’t trying to kill Harvey Dent…the paradox at the end is that he has to save the Joker because he has a chance to and Harvey Dent pays the price because he is going to kill an innocent and it’s a conundrum.

I know this long discussion has taken this thread a bit off the topic (sorry BatmanFanatic ) of "Did Batman Need to Fall" onto that of Batman's morality, but I think it is definitely worth discussing and I would love to hear everyone's responses to the scenarios "would Batman kill or be killed," and, "would Batman kill or allow an innocent to die," and how the answers effect his moral code, his mission, and the possible conflicts between them. If necessary I will move the discussion to a new thread so that this one can continue on its intended course. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds to, thinks about, or even reads my posts.

In that interview the interviewer asks him "But Batman kills in this movie!" and he responds with something along the lines of "thats part of the theme, that Joker exemplified, that killing is just a choice...blah blah blah." It's later on in the interview after the bit you transcribed. Not word for word obviously, thats just some of what I remember.

 

[magus]

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

That is really all I want to do: not to convert anyone to any specific ideology or convince them of "facts," but to introduce them to new, or at least different, ways of thinking about the character and his actions.

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

It just gives us more to pull from. It sounds ok to me to utilize whatever we can find.

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 absolutely agree that "the ends justify the means" shouldn't be a rule of thumb, but should it ever be the case? Batman's rule judges the act itself, not the ends, but is there ever an ends so great enough to justify the means? I honestly don't have an answer at the moment but that is a really tough question.

I also agree that Batman would have trouble forgiving himself. Does that also mean that it would be unjustified? I don't quite have an answer for that either but I am pretty sure even if Batman allowed exceptions to his one rule he would still be greatly upset by it.

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.

I still don't agree with this point. The situation between Batman and a police officer isn't similar for a couple reasons:

1. There is no generic event that applies to both Batman and all people who are police officers making them what they are.

2. Batman is a criminal, whether he fights justice or not. Going beyond the law is not in the scope of a police officer's duty as it is Batman's.

3. Being a police officer doesn't necessitate fighting for justice. The job description does, but Batman comics show us that it doesn't hold true.

Honestly, this point isn't very important for the discussion either way. There are plenty of ways to assess Batman's rule without even discussing the comics (*gasp*) nevermind trying to argue what Batman could or could not forsee.

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

This will just turn into a debate of how much time is "soon after Batman's presence". The Joker appearance is after 1 year, meaning that Gotham felt safe for about a year. Is that enough time for Batman to think his plan will actually work? Maybe. Thank you for pointing that out but I am not sure I want to continue down this line.

The one thing I am concerned with at the moment is how do we answer the questions "what would Batman choose in a scenario of kill or be killed and a scenario of kill or allow another to die". I think simply answering those questions and discussing the implications of said answers will be the most fruitful course of action.

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.

This is very much debatable. There is no guarantee that any of these villains would exist without Batman. In the comics it is difficult to argue, but at the very least I am not alone in my interpretation given TDK's main themes.

I have started a new thread specifically for this topic, http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=308545 , so please head over there for any further discussion on this topic so we can allow this thread to get back on topic.

 

[Mandrill]

One throught I had is perhaps Batman is thinking back to what Ras said to him in BB.

Ras told him that Gotham had been in trouble before but the deaths of 2 of it's good citizen's ,The Wayne's had shocked the good people of Gotham who joined together to galvanize Gotham and make it good again.Perhaps Batman see's that in Harveys death as a good person ,a White Knight will make people stand up and take action in the right way the legal way....meanwhile he will work in the shadow's doing thing's in his own way.

 

[Anita18]

Hooo boy I leave for 5 days and all this discussion happens without me!

Ummm, I guess I'll just jump in then!

You know I found your first reply about Ras's death and Bruce's involvment to be in lighting and very well thought out.I felt that you had really reserached the movie and had gone threw some the issues in you mind quite a few times......

But now I'm not so sure.

Depends on how you play it. I'm a very reasonable and intelligent person, but even I was like, "WTF?" in SR when Superman listens to all of humanity above the earth and the worst thing he hears at the time was a bank robbery. In Metropolis, no less. While watching the movie, I thought, "Go find some terrorists to beat up or save some refugees, punk!"

You buy the "listening to millions of people from a high vantage point" in TDK much more readily because Batman only has watch over one city, and his main directive is looking for the Joker. But I digress...

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

Absolutely. The most fascinating part of Batman isn't the fact that he's badass (well, he is), but it's the fact he can't do everything. He's human, and he has to make choices with real consequences.

Many critics' reviews mention the heaviness of TDK, because when Batman makes choices, there are REAL consequences. People die. The really fascinating stuff happens when you see what Batman decides to do when there are no easy choices, and no miraculous option that allows him to save everyone. That's why TDK is so realistic, because in real life, not every innocent can be saved.

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?

That's a good one. What if some small-time thug has some sort of internal condition that Batman simply isn't aware of (cause unlike Superman, he doesn't have x-ray vision)? It's absolutely a plausible scenario.

For me, it's all about intent, and I distill the "no killing" rule to a "no murdering" rule, but I think that's supposedly inherent in the code.

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.

He does, but the writers chose to go with what they did because of thematic and character reasons. I've explained them earlier in this thread here:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=15332414#post15332414

If you don't agree with me, then so be it. I'm not going to sit here and try to change your mind.

 

[Motown Marvel]

It is a cop out because you are not following the rules of the exercise. It is a HYPOTHETICAL situation. I am asking you to apply Batman's solid moral code to a hypothetical situation. The likeliness and even the possibility of the situation is COMPLETELY irrelevant. All that matters is Batman's code + Logic = what does Batman choose when the situation is to kill or be killed, or an alternate situation of kill or allow an innocent to be killed. This isn't me trying to provoke people into saying something they don't want to, or to even convince someone of a certain point of view; I don't even necessarily believe that Batman would kill in the first scenario, at least not certain interpretations of him. Your inability to think in the abstract is astounding and I am surprised you haven't just said, "but none of this matters, Batman isn't real".




I don't have to provide the specifics of the scenario, they are irrelevant. All that matters is IF ever presented with such a choice, and it is a choice, what would Batman do. Some have already said Batman would allow himself to die rather than kill, and I concede to that point under certain criteria, I just want logic to be used instead of saying "just because".

I am not "forcing" Batman to kill; I am merely placing him into a hypothetical situation that tests the limits of his moral code. He most definitely can choose not to kill and many people, including me, think that is true under certain circumstances. There is no guise or shock value (which is a terribly inappropriate term. Who am I shocking? Why would I shock them?) and I am not telling a Batman story, so I see no need for the scenario to be pertinent to a story that doesn't exist.

I am attempting to extricate exactly what the Batman fan base on this board knows about Batman's moral code and how it could apply to scenarios Batman hasn't faced. There are beneficial reasons to do this:The reflection and research in arguing one's opinion teaches us a great deal about the character; how we feel about and relate to him; and how he might exist in a world outside of the comic world.

I honestly am not trying to "prove" anything definitive about the character other than the hypothesis that Batman's code is not as simple as many portray it to be. To what lengths will he go to preserve his morality? Would he allow himself to die (purely for the moral choice)? Would he allow others to die? These are deep questions that other Super Heroes don't afford us and investigating them is well worth the effort for anyone who appreciates the character. You never once questioned Batman's commitment to his rule and to the extent that it applies?

I want to prompt discussion on this topic. I don't want to badger you for your opinions and I ABSOLUTELY WILL concede to opinions backed up by fact and reasoning. I do not know everything about the character and I can easily name others who have read much more extensively, so I am learning as much as, if not more, than anyone by posing these questions.




I'm not talking about movies or comic books. I am asking how a set of rules applies to a set of choices, that is it. There is no story involved. How does Batman's rule function when the choices are kill or be killed? If the rule is an absolute, then he obviously will be killed. If the rule has exceptions, what are they and why? Would Batman allow an innocent to die to preserve his rule? Would his choice conflict with his mission? These are questions worth exploring and instead of working through them you are talking about how contrived a philosophical scenario is when that is the very definition of a hypothetical situation.




And just how far does that rule extend? Does it only apply to punishment? Does it just mean that Batman will never willingly choose to kill someone? Does it extend to become Batman will never make a choice that could possibly lead to killing someone? It is very easy to interpret the rule as "I won't be an executioner," as opposed to the completely literal. My second presented scenario of would Batman kill or allow an innocent to be killed is much more insightful in that regard and draws into question just how his mission can continue with such a rule or if there must be an exception.

If Batman upholds the absolute literal interpretation of his rule then would he allow an innocent to die rather than kill? Or is there a conflict between rules there? That is a hypothetical choice but one that Batman must have at least had to consider at some point. I find it impossible that someone with his foresight wouldn't have questioned how far he can ethically take this. Which choice could Batman justify? Killing to save a life? Allowing death for refusing to take a life? Both? Neither (which is a valid choice, though I guess Batman would just implode)? These are fantastic questions and I'd love for Batman fans to really think about them and post their responses.




There's no way of actually knowing that he wouldn't have either. We expect that he won't because of his rule (I concede that that is the likely choice, but that doesn't make it the only choice), but maybe something just pushed him over that limit.

The boat scene is a great example but it doesn't negate the possibility that he could have done it. How he'd feel about it afterwards is a completely different matter, but there is plenty of reason to believe he could/would do it. I recommend checking out Batman and Philosophy for a solid discussion on whether or not Batman should kill the Joker, as it depicts a version of the scenario I do and handles it very objectively.




Again, I don't have to. A hypothetical is a hypothetical. The situation isn't illogical, which is all that is required for it to possibly exist. The only situations that can't exist are those that directly contradict and the choices kill, or be killed AND kill or let another be killed do not contradict.

Also, whoever said I wanted to see Batman kill? He could just as easily choose not to kill. I want to know, as precisely as possible, the exact terms of his moral code and these situations give me more information than has been given from other sources. I am not trying to "shock" anyone; I am not asking that a writer make Batman kill someone for any reason, let alone simply for the sake of it. Get the idea of stories out of your head. I am not applying the choice Batman makes to any story (though I think a story about him asking himself these very questions could be interesting), I just want to know what choice he would make in such a set of situations.

Might a STORY written specifically to make Batman choose to kill or die be contrived. Probably. Does that make the question of what he would choose irrelevant? Absolutely not.

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



Absolutely an uncalled for comment. You can't even answer a couple "simple" two choice scenarios about a code you claim you know so much about and instead of questioning what you know and how well you know it, you are simply using an ad absurdum argument to try and nullify my questions (which aren't even full-blown opinions because I haven't stated very clearly where I stand on all of these questions).




Hostility and rudeness for no reason. I don't devalue your opinions and I would expect for you to at least think about the questions I pose. I am more than open to varrying opinions and do not even have a fully formed opinion of all of this yet. I just know that what everyone has provided is not enough and if you listen to the Jonathan Nolan interview pointed out by another poster, he absoltuely agrees with my questioning and poised much of TDK to do the same.




Contrived and hollow have NOTHING to do with the questions at hand. I want to know exactly what the limits of Batman's code are and while you are free to disagree with my stating the POSSIBILITY of killing being within Batman's code under certain conditions, you haven't even entertained my conjecture while I am fully willing to admit that there are certain hypothetical scenarios like mine in which Batman STILL WOULDN'T KILL. I am completely open-minded to the situation and am asking for you to use LOGIC to state how Batman's rule of "I will not kill" dictates his choice in scenarios in which the choices are "kill or be killed" and "kill or allow an innocent to die". These are EXTREMELY poignant questions and will tell us a great deal about the character if you merely use your facilities to construct a response.



This is much closer to what I am looking for. While not exactly within the rules of the situation it actually applies the type of thinking I am asking for. I find it ludicrous that anyone could believe that there MUST ALWAYS be a situation in which there is an option 3 but it is COMPLETELY VALID (maybe even likely) that Batman would believe there is always an option 3. I concede that Batman may say that, but I still think there is more to be discovered by just making the choice. I truly appreciate this part of your response (all of it actually. As confrontational as I may seem I both respect and appreciate opposition. as long as it doesn't become personal) as that is much higher-level thinking than "Batman said he will never kill". People say a lot of things, but just how literally are we (he) meant to interpret it?



My opinion is that we can learn a lot by answering the questions I have posed. That is really it. I acknowledge the possibility that killing could be within Batman's moral code under certain conditions and I am only asking that you help me think through this by answering logical thought exercises. There is nothing misleading or ill-spirited in the scenarios. They are sets of choices that have to be made using the criteria of Batman's rule.

I have not put down your opinions and if it has seemed that way I apologize. I absolutely respect if you don't believe in what I consider a possibility but I do not appreciate you disregarding completely valid methods of disecting and analyzing Batman's moral code. Let's keep it civil, please, and get at some real discussion of Batman's one rule.

you say im not following the rules of this exercise. the problem with everything you just said is your making up your own rules to this "hypothetical situation" rather than following the rules and parameters of the comics and character. hypothetical situations, especially ones designed to explore a character, should be designed around the world and rules of that character. that way, the conclusion of your hypothetical is a most accurate conclusion. and when your hypothetical situation doesnt include rules that the character lives and is defined by, when it denies you viable options within the world of that character, your hypothetical becomes pointless.

 

[ultimatefan]

No, Batman tackles Two-Face, and at some point he grabs the kid. When Batman is pulling the kid up for Gordon, you can already see Two-Face on the bottom, "dead." Batman didn't fall until AFTER he handed the kid to Gordon. And he was stupid/weak enough not to use the memory cloth to ease the fall.

It didn´t happen like that, Harvey fell after Batman handed the kid to Gordon. You only see Harvey at the bottom after Gordon checks if Batman is alive. Even if Batman was more concerned about the kid, that´s understandable, you protect a child first in emergency situations. He fell on his back and crashed through something if memory serves me, he didn´t have time or consciense to use the memory cloth. How would Batman even fall after he handed the kid if Harvey wasn´t somehow holding him down, all he had to do was to climb up.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It didn´t happen like that, Harvey fell after Batman handed the kid to Gordon. You only see Harvey at the bottom after Gordon checks if Batman is alive. Even if Batman was more concerned about the kid, that´s understandable, you protect a child first in emergency situations. He fell on his back and crashed through something if memory serves me, he didn´t have time or consciense to use the memory cloth. How would Batman even fall after he handed the kid if Harvey wasn´t somehow holding him down, all he had to do was to climb up.

I'm pretty sure of what I saw. Dent was already visibly lying dead on the ground while Batman handed the kid over to Gordon. The reason Batman fell was because he was too weak to climb up, I guess. Dent was already dead by that point.

 

[deathfromabove]

It didn´t happen like that, Harvey fell after Batman handed the kid to Gordon. You only see Harvey at the bottom after Gordon checks if Batman is alive. Even if Batman was more concerned about the kid, that´s understandable, you protect a child first in emergency situations. He fell on his back and crashed through something if memory serves me, he didn´t have time or consciense to use the memory cloth. How would Batman even fall after he handed the kid if Harvey wasn´t somehow holding him down, all he had to do was to climb up.

nope.

when the camera shows batman hanging with james jr. for the first time harvey is already on the ground behind them. it never shows harvey fall or hit the ground.

I'm pretty sure of what I saw. Dent was already visibly lying dead on the ground while Batman handed the kid over to Gordon. The reason Batman fell was because he was too weak to climb up, I guess. Dent was already dead by that point.

this is correct.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I still don't agree with this point. The situation between Batman and a police officer isn't similar for a couple reasons:

1. There is no generic event that applies to both Batman and all people who are police officers making them what they are.

2. Batman is a criminal, whether he fights justice or not. Going beyond the law is not in the scope of a police officer's duty as it is Batman's.

3. Being a police officer doesn't necessitate fighting for justice. The job description does, but Batman comics show us that it doesn't hold true.

Honestly, this point isn't very important for the discussion either way. There are plenty of ways to assess Batman's rule without even discussing the comics (*gasp*) nevermind trying to argue what Batman could or could not forsee.

Your still misunderstanding me.

I'm not trying to compare Batman to a police officer.

I'm simply saying that the choice of one person to take on any profession does not translate into a increase in the need for that type of work.

Just choseing to be Batman does not mean that you can foresee that there would be more criminals to fight any more then choseing to become a contractor means that there are more building to build.

But as you suggested lets drop it.

The point has been lost anyway.

The one thing I am concerned with at the moment is how do we answer the questions "what would Batman choose in a scenario of kill or be killed and a scenario of kill or allow another to die". I think simply answering those questions and discussing the implications of said answers will be the most fruitful course of action.

Well I gave you my opinion.

I really dont see him killing to save himself.

To save an other yes but not himself.

This is very much debatable. There is no guarantee that any of these villains would exist without Batman. In the comics it is difficult to argue, but at the very least I am not alone in my interpretation given TDK's main themes.

Some of them existed before Batman and many of the ones that didnt already had mental problems before Batman came around.

It may not seem that way because for us as readers we tend to thing of these characters as being born or created when we meat them.

But many of Batman's villains are about as old as Batman and have had mental illness since child hood.

Most of them were into petty crimes before they got what ever powers they ended up with.

So for the most part they all would not be very nice people with or with out Bats.

I have started a new thread specifically for this topic, http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=308545 , so please head over there for any further discussion on this topic so we can allow this thread to get back on topic.

I'll check it out.

 

[Garzo]

One thing that remained unsaid but was quite obvious from the general theme of the film was that knocking Batman down a notch, making him a criminal, also makes him more fearsome to criminals. The Joker taunted him for his supposed code of honor that kept him from killing. Now, accused of murder and pursued by the police, he becomes a much more fearful opponent, a savage vigilante like The Punisher. Batman is obviously not the Punisher, but the criminals don't have to know that. And Batman is not Spider-Man, he doesn't care what the citizens think of him.
It was a cool dramatic direction.

 

[Ratatat]

Shhh. Everybody go to sleep.

 

[The Game]

It didn´t happen like that, Harvey fell after Batman handed the kid to Gordon. You only see Harvey at the bottom after Gordon checks if Batman is alive. Even if Batman was more concerned about the kid, that´s understandable, you protect a child first in emergency situations. He fell on his back and crashed through something if memory serves me, he didn´t have time or consciense to use the memory cloth. How would Batman even fall after he handed the kid if Harvey wasn´t somehow holding him down, all he had to do was to climb up.

Soooo your saying Batman was holding Harvey and the kid with one arm or maybe he was holding them in each arm

 

[The_Raganork]

It didn´t happen like that, Harvey fell after Batman handed the kid to Gordon. You only see Harvey at the bottom after Gordon checks if Batman is alive. Even if Batman was more concerned about the kid, that´s understandable, you protect a child first in emergency situations. He fell on his back and crashed through something if memory serves me, he didn´t have time or consciense to use the memory cloth. How would Batman even fall after he handed the kid if Harvey wasn´t somehow holding him down, all he had to do was to climb up.

you're 100% wrong

Batman throws himself at Dent and all three fall over...

Gordon rushes and sees that Batman has caught James Jr.; but Harvey has fallen.

Batman Hands over James Jr. then falls off next to Harvey.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Depends on how you play it. I'm a very reasonable and intelligent person, but even I was like, "WTF?" in SR when Superman listens to all of humanity above the earth and the worst thing he hears at the time was a bank robbery. In Metropolis, no less. While watching the movie, I thought, "Go find some terrorists to beat up or save some refugees, punk!"

You buy the "listening to millions of people from a high vantage point" in TDK much more readily because Batman only has watch over one city, and his main directive is looking for the Joker. But I digress...


Absolutely. The most fascinating part of Batman isn't the fact that he's badass (well, he is), but it's the fact he can't do everything. He's human, and he has to make choices with real consequences.

Many critics' reviews mention the heaviness of TDK, because when Batman makes choices, there are REAL consequences. People die. The really fascinating stuff happens when you see what Batman decides to do when there are no easy choices, and no miraculous option that allows him to save everyone. That's why TDK is so realistic, because in real life, not every innocent can be saved.


That's a good one. What if some small-time thug has some sort of internal condition that Batman simply isn't aware of (cause unlike Superman, he doesn't have x-ray vision)? It's absolutely a plausible scenario.

For me, it's all about intent, and I distill the "no killing" rule to a "no murdering" rule, but I think that's supposedly inherent in the code.

1.I think you imagined that scene in SR. That bank robbery took place somewhere non-descript.

2. There has to be some kind of limit to intent for superheroes. Batman didn't intend to kill RA, he didn't intend to kill Two-Face, he didn't intend to kill 5 cops. I understand people will get killed but he doesn't come across and worse because of it. You don't feel that Bruce really cares about any of the casualties of War.

3. " Batman has no limits" is a arrogant statement to make. Batman's action at the party to save Rachel tipped off Joker to her importance. But after she was killed, he was more concerned about losing his love/normal life than the question of whether he should be around anyone. There was no introspective to "the cost of victory." Just a sappy line about "inspire good and not madness."


4. The fact that we are discussing this so profoundly must make Nolan happy on some level.t:t: