I've always assumed that the Batman realises at some level that he is himself mentally disturbed and therefore needed this rule which he is never to break in order to keep himself in line. He knows he can't trust his own judgement on a case by case basis and therefore must fall back on absolutes that he has set from the very beginning.
Something like this... he is not entirely sane, so he has his code. This thought was clarified in Miller's DKR, persists in my favorite batman stories like NolanVerse movies.
+John Kricorian (Krico) also why does everyone want him to be a killer the fact that he gets the job done without causing casualties is way more impressive than jist shooting a bullet. plus its the lawmaker or judges fault that joker kills more people not Batman.
My question is why hasn't Gotham City's government killed Joker. There's the insanity plea but I think Joker's past the point of having that scapegoat.
Good storyline on that - the Joker used poison stamps and indeed almost got the Death Penalty. But, whoops, plot twist. Pointed out also that most Prosecutors only care winning a case, not guilt or innocence since they are in it for their career, not for justice. So a criminal who can pull every defense and attorney out of the woodworks is usually ignored and even the government thinks 10x before going after.
There was a good late 90s Batman story - "Joker: Devil's Advocate" where a new and non-corrupt prosecutor goes all out to give the Joker the death penalty at last - over a bunch of murders connected to his recent attempt to extort the Post office... But Batman has lingering doubts he might not be guilty.
I don't imagine he would even get a trial irl. He'd be labelled as a terrorist who threatens national security and would be shoot to kill by any cop who runs into him. When you become a terroirist you are stripped of all your rights, the government can do whatever they want with you.
I do believe that one of the reasons Batman doesn't kill the Joker is in part due to he himself being a psychotic break waiting to happen... When Batman is revived in the Lazerous pit he is completely healed, trauma and all so he forgets about being Batman... this to me indicated that as Batman he is a walking jigsaw puzzle of mental illness's which he barely has a handle on... And only through such strong willpower does he not completely break mentally... If he killed the Joker he may in deed end up breaking mentally and perhaps in turn becoming what he himself hates the most? I'm really no expert but I hope this little theory is at least enjoyable to read :)
+Commander ChaosWulff I see Batman as a necessary alternate persona for Bruce to channel his trauma into. He's essentially becoming fear in order to treat his own fear.
So the other question no one asks is: Why must Batman BE THE ONE to kill Joker? Any random person could kill Joker when he's in cuffs. They keep upgrading security, there is no reason for anyone in Gotham to expect Joker to escape very time. (but WE know)
Joker does what he does half the time because of Batman. Or to get under his skin. And joker is a supervillain...it's definitely Batmans responsibility at that point. And Bruce took the responsibility to protect Gotham against forces the police struggled with. It's also one thing to execute someone when already defeated, and another to kill them in battle to insure they don't do any more damage before you win, or if you die in said battle. There's a big difference between killing a pow unarmed in cold blood, and killing them in a fire fight on the battlefield.
I always thought batman didn't kill the joker because it wasn't his choice to make. In the animated series episode 'The Under-dwellers' he said, "I don't pass sentence. That's for the courts."
Which begs the question...why doesn’t the state just execute him? I mean, in the new comics Catwoman is put on death row, but the Joker? WHAT BLASPHEMY!”
@@alexandersmith7061 How can they put Catwoman on death row when all she does is steal stuff she hasn't taken a life? But yet the Joker has killed numerous people & every time hes caught he's sent to the crazy house. No, Joker is not insane he knew what he was doing & didn't care if it was wrong or right he did it for kicks yet the govt won't give him the electric chair? That's messed up that new comic will die out real quick.
That's another good reason. Personally, I don't think it is the job of us humans to decide when somebody dies. Self-defense, unexpected, passion death, etc. are another story. I'm talking about premeditated killing. My moral code comes a lot from 12 years of Catholic school and I'm very grateful for it.
Another thing that's been overlooked in this video is that Batman's one rule only applies to humans. In extreme situations Batman as well as all of the signature members of the Justice League are willing to kill things that are inhuman, this includes space aliens (Ironic I know) Darkseid is more than sufficiently inhuman for him to be killed without breaking the one rule.
He doesn't really kill aliens though. Mindless drones, reanimated corpses, unalive doomsday clones, sure. Even feral animals if he can't help it. But living, thinking, sapient beings? No. Darkseid was basically the only exception and that was because the entire multiverse was literally being destroyed just by Darkseids presence. And because he knew he wouldn't survive so it didn't matter.
If I were batman...I'd pretty much just cripple The Joker... make sure he can never walk or move again....but hey...he'd still be alive... am I a bad person? well...it's either I cripple one man or watch him kill thousands more...
+Maluki Mbesa Agreed. Has the comic books ever mentioned that? It's technically not killing and hey if he can never walk again maybe he'll "reflect" on his actions. Or higher a bunch of people to break Batman's back... again. But fail because of author or win and then bring him back... Again.
+Demetrius Prime lol he actually did in the dark knight returns it's an animated movie but it is brilliant...I would recommend you read the comic but I personally think the animated movie is better... just visually you can watch it online free...he snapped jokers neck...but Joker just killed himself
+Mavrickindigo All good. Just getting a fair few blatant spoilers being reported or commented on. Not knowing what to expect is part of the fun, that's all. - Nali
To me, his comment about not being able to come back after crossing that line has to do with his being on the edge of insanity. He is on the brink of becoming a monster and the only thing preventing his mental instability from taking over is the practice of constant unwavering virtues. He knows himself well enough to know he could not come back from even one lapse into vice.
+darthcarnage12 I really like this point. I don't think we focus on this enough but Batman is someone who is mentally unstable and knows it. He is aware of his own mental illness and manages his condition. I'm in a similar situation and I have a number of rules that I've set up for myself that allow me to manage my condition. I don't think this is something that is brought up enough with regards to Batman and is maybe an issue deserving of a video.... hint....
@@ZayToDiffrent Because he needs him. Compare the typical Bruce Wayne to the other iterations that exist in the DC multiverse and you see a pattern emerge. Each one experiences a trauma that fundamentally changes their lives. While the main version chooses to channel that trauma into the Bat persona, the others lack that outlet and transform into dangerous criminals, each with the same drive, intelligence, and strength of will but are lacking in the morality and guilt that made Bruce who he is today. It seems that Batman is not the rule but rather the exception and that Bruce Wayne was always meant to be a monster.
Batman: "No more! All the people I've murdered...by letting you live" Joker: " I never kept count" Batman: " I did" Joker: " I know. And I love you for it." Some of the final lines shared by them in the dark knight returns before batman kills joker in the tunnel of love...
Okay, I recently heard something that is perfect for Comic Misconceptions: the idea is that Joker is actually similar to Deadpool in that he knows he is just a comic character and that is why he acts the way he does. Is this true, or another misconception?
I hate that scene so much. It literally goes against Batman's rule. Batman's rule isn't just about not actively killing someone but also about not letting them die when he can prevent it. Him letting Ra's die when he could have saved him broke his rule and would have made comic Batman sick.
@@bern9642 No he has not. WTF are you talking about? The rule is not loose at all. Since the 1940's, the past 80 years, that has been the ONE defining trait that has stuck around with the main continuity character regardless of who writes him. I can think of only 1 time in the main continuity (not elseworlds like DKR or alternate evil versions like Owlman) where Batman has actually broken his rule. That was in Infinite Crisis when he shot Darkseid. Darkseid, God of evil. Whose very presence was enough to destabilize the entire multiverse. That was what it took for him to actually kill someone. Of course, there were times when he's come close. Mostly with the Joker. But all of these times he was reminded of his rule and held back. He doesn't kill. Except in movies of course.
Great episode Scott! This all reminds me of a conversation from the pages of Civil War (or a comic published during Civil War) where somebody (I think Maria Hill) in favour of the Superhuman Registration Act talks about all the times Spider-Man has chosen, without state input, to put Green Goblin in jail rather than kill him, suggesting that it's Spidey's fault whenever the Goblin busts out and does more evil. But it seems stupid to blame Spider-Man, because he never took that decision away from the state at all. Once he turns Green Goblin over to the authorities, the decision to imprison or to execute the Goblin rests on the state. And similarly, if the Joker keeps getting out of jail because he keeps being allowed to live, blame can be placed on the judicial system for not executing him just as much as it can be placed on Batman.
Yea batman won't kill you he'll just leave you in paralyzed and in a coma for the rest of your life on the brink of death but just anough to where you'll survive to feel all of it. love it.
Even better! Batman won’t kill, but he will cripple any and every thug that’s so broke they are willing to work for the joker and leave them with a hospital bill from the hospital Bruce owns so ridiculous that they will have to take a loan at the bank Bruce owns and forever be in debt and paying money to… you guessed it Bruce! And when you think about it like that it makes sense he won’t kill, prisoners and people who have been beat within a inch of life are worth exponentially more.
*Azrael* is not only a funny cat, he's also my kind of hero. I'm pissed with *Batman*, because, ok, you don't want to kill... but at least cripple him! Rip off his eyes, make the fucking *Joker* harmless. But that's *Batman*, we can argue about his moral code... What actually SURPRISE me is *Gotham's law!* Come friggin on!! He's a god damn murderer!!! And you put him into an 'asylum'?!? Trow him in a Fort Knox alike jail and trow away the key!!! There is no Death Penalty in a city stuffed with criminals, like *Gotham*!?!? In that case just capture him and make a present box for a Texas prison (I know you can do it). -BETMARK-
You're hilarious. Insanity plea, you cant send someone with a mental illness onto death row. As time progresses the insanity case will get far more strict as to whether or not it's truly insanity due to advancements in neuro science but we really cant tell yet, if you're evaluated by a psychologist to be insane then they cant give you the death penalty. This is why many people consider psychology to be a dumb realm of science, as of now, it's based off of a lot of theories, we just dont know enough about the human brain.
+Nyxato So, ok, if we take for good that DC Universe still share our same laws (for some reason), why nobody else never tried to kill that clown? He don't have super powers, he's just a way too lucky human. I mean some other pissed vigilante, some *Red Hood*, or just a cop, sick of that situation. Just pick a random Movie Hero of the 80s/90s, they always kill everyone. Or (and this is my last 'card up the sleeve') what about *Amanda Waller*? She killed a lot of people for what she tought it was 'a just cause'. No mercy for the *Death Squad* team, and she also tried to kill the parents of *Terry McGinnis*, just to create a new *Batman*... No? Nobody else in that universe is *Azrael* alike? I think a god called *'That character bring us too much money to kill him'* is protectin that pagliaccio, not the law. -BETMARK-
BETMARKonTube What do you mean "for some reason", why would Gotham not have the same laws? It takes place in America. There's probably tons of people that have tried to kill the Joker. Why are we talking about this? I was talking about death row and the insanity plea.
+Nyxato I'm sorry, the second part of my comment was just something I wanted to add to the discussion. About the 'some reason': I think is weird that a world where super villains and any kind of terrorist are on the daily menu still have the same rules of our 'universe'. We have some kinds of laws and rules, based on our actual situation: normal criminals and rare insane dangerous mass murderers. I'm quite sure, if our cities would start to be filled by those kind of criminals, we would quickly make new laws and 'exceptions'.
No, no he’s not. Batman is not responsible for the Joker’s actions. The Joker and those who willingly aid him are responsible, and only them. Batman may allow the Joker to live, but it is the Joker who chooses how to use his life. And if it is so important that Joker die, then why hasn’t he been given the death penalty? If our own courts aren’t willing to condemn Joker to death, then don’t they share the same blame as Batman? Actually, if we’re playing the blame game then the courts deserve far more than Batman. After all, they’re the ones with the legal authority to decide if Joker should die, whereas Batman is a guy in tights. Here’s another question: if the courts are unwilling to kill Batman, then why must Batman do it? To ask Batman to kill a man we’re not willing to order killed ourselves is not only cowardly, it’s asking Batman to declare himself judge, jury and executioner. That’s too much power for any man.
@@magnusprime962 yes he is. Batman is 100000 percent confident that joker will get out and kill again. And again. And again. He knows it to be true, he is capable of stopping it, but he doesn't. To protect his own image of himself. That's enabling.
@@magnusprime962 Batman literally let's a flawed legal system fail time and time again to handle the joker Batman knows the courts won't hold joker knows Gotham citizens know this. Batman is a villgnate meaning it he acts outside the law to do what the law couldn't or wouldn't do the moment he puts that costume on he took on the responsibilities of making sure Gotham is safe Which it isn't everyday joker murders thousands of innocent men women children traumatized them all Many characters have called Batman out for his utter incompetence dealing with the joker
Batman, like the Joker is mentally insane, he has a vengeance from the death of his parents, years before he became the Batman. Most people will get over death, but Bruce never did. He set standards for himself, in order to avenge his parents, but became addicted to the crime fighting. It's not that he doesn't want the Joker dead, it's just that he enjoys the chase and all his battles with the clown prince. Joker and Batman aren't so different, the only difference is that Joker went over the edge and started killing, and became addicted to it, just like how Batman is addicted to the crime fighting, but if he became a killer, he would end up killing all of the criminals, and with no criminals to kill, he might plunge into insanity and become an even stronger Joker.
Evan Buck Actually no you are so wrong, Batman despite being all serious and brooding, he is very optimistic. The reason he really doesn’t kill the Joker is because he thinks he can rehabilitate everyone.
I think there's another consideration into why Batman doesn't kill Joker and it's not about his role as a symbol. Batman is a symbol of Justice that drives fear into the hearts of criminals, because it is unknown yet very real. If Batman killed Joker after a set number of horrendous crimes Joker did, Batman would be basically creating a line that says "Anything beyond this point warrants death". This would make him less of a symbol of justice, and more of a system of justice. A subjective measurement of justice. Batman can't allow himself to seem subjective, because subjective standards can be argued with and dismissed.
I believe that one character in the DC universe where I doubt Batman would feel any guilt for killing nor should he is Solomon Grundy not just because he's a zombie so he's already technically dead but one of Solomon Grundy's superpowers is in fact Resurrection so even if you kill him he'll pretty much come back.
dude i’m genuinely very pleasantly surprise by how in-depth you went into Kant’s specific form of deontology and how well and accurately you apply it to Batman’s flawed deontology. Amazing analysis
You can come back after you crossed the line. Except if you intentionally cross the line, because you know you can come back. That's how addicted people think.
Exactly. Like with cigarette smokers: "I'm not addicted. I can stop whenever I want." Meanwhile they still keep smoking with no intention of stopping. Same thing
(Warning: this comment contains spoilers for Arkham City) For those of you who don't know, in Batman: Arkham City, the Joker dies, and Batman obviously is very hurt by this. When Talia, his ex-girlfriend dies, he doesn't shed a tear, but when Joker dies, no one is more upset than Batman (except Harley Quinn). Speaking of Harley Quinn, her and Joker's relationship is very similar to Joker's and Batman's. No matter how many crimes Joker has committed, Batman can't kill him. No matter how many times Batman has put Joker in Arkham Asylum, if Joker kills Batman, he would be in misery. Joker thinks that Batman is the only one that cares for him, when Joker detonates a bomb, possibly killing hundreds of innocent people and blown off the roof by Bane in Arkham Origins, Batman jumps off the roof to save him, which is why he thinks that he's the only one that cares about him, because if someone like Commissioner Gordan saw him blow up a building, he for sure wouldn't save him.
You can make a strong case that the Joker should be killed (depending on whether you think redemption is possible, and how you feel about the death penalty in general) but it's a lot harder to argue that Batman should be the one to do it. Batman's not there to play God and decide who lives and who dies; he's there to stop criminals and deliver them to justice. Darkseid falls into a different category - rather than a police action against a criminal, the confrontation with him was a battle in a war against an invading force - and the difference between war and police action is that in war you don't have a judicial authority to turn the offenders over to (though there's a scene in Jingo by Terry Pratchett where Captain Carrot ends a war by arresting both armies on several thousand counts of conspiracy to disturb the peace) - maybe if Darkseid could be subdued, he could have been turned over to the Guardians of the Universe or New Genesis, but, as an enemy combatant, it was entirely appropriate for Batman to try to kill him. Despite political rhetoric, the "war on crime" is not a war, and Batman's role in it does not extend to having the right to kill. And even if the law can't deal with the Joker, what about Gotham's less law-abiding citizens? The Joker is as much a threat to them as to anyone else - having him around has to be bad for business - so how come none of them have fitted him for a concrete overcoat? Ultimately, the reason Batman shouldn't kill the Joker is because it's not his place to dispense justice.
I feel Batman should kill villains only if its the only solution or if the villain goes too far. I like CW's Arrow's and Marvel's Daredevil's approach.
There is no real satisfying in-universe reason for Batman not to kill the Joker. The real answer is he's one of the most popular villains in possibly all of comics and pop culture, Batman's comics/cartoons/movies just wouldn't be the same without him. I mean can anyone truly imagine the Batman comics without the Joker ever making another appearance ever again? Though honestly, the DC universe reboots every few years. Why not have Batman kill Joker and deal with the consequences... then just wait for another Flashpoint/New 52/Rebirth/Crisis event to retcon it and bring Joker back?
I kinda think in the Joker's case with his exaggerated kill count, yeah. Batman has the power to stop him, while most of the time the cops get killed trying to stop his schemes. Sure, taking him in like 3 or 4 times and hoping for the best is one thing, but Batman has thrown Joker into Arkham hundreds of times, and he escapes hundreds of times and kills tons of people each time. I still say, shortly before the next big Crisis event resets everything, have Joker do something so sick, so inhumane that Batman snaps and kills him, and deals with the emotional consequences. Then BAM another Crisis/New 52/Rebirth and the Joker never died and Batman never killed him, and possibly Superman never had a son, etc but at least we got some interesting what if scenarios to see how Bats would handle himself if he did kill the Joker.
Also I'm sure there are technical reasons too. And I'm not just talking about what Bruce said in death of he family, but consider this: joker might, in all his craziness, have some sort of contingency plan to blow up the city in the event of his death or maybe his henchmen would turn into flesh-eating zombies or maybe Harley would exact revenge on the whole city for the death of her "puddin". You never know what joker is capable of and like I said it's just too big of a risk
I tend to lean towards utilitarianism. You can make all the moral and philosophical arguments you want, but what comfort is that to all the people who suffer and die in the meantime? In effect, Batman's refusal to kill Joker is pure selfishness. Countless people have suffered and will continue to suffer so that Batman can keep his conscience clean. Every time Joker kills that's a life that Batman was willing to spend to keep his own morality unblemished. It would be more heroic to sacrifice his own virtue for the wellbeing of others.
Joker is the worst of them all. All of Batmans other villains have a reason for why they do what they do. Penguin just wants to be rich while Rash Al Ghoul wants to rid the world of all the scum that inhabits it. Joker has no reason for killing anyone and that is why he has to die.
well if you want to what would happen if batman killed the joker take arkham knight for example were batmans fear came true.if you read the arkham knight comic it was said that joker was a loose cannon and his antiques in a sense protected batman from other forces and with his death crime became more organized so much so that every villian made a plan to kill batman in every shape of the word. What batman said is true gotham would send something worse than him not only because without joker there is no chaos in crime but it allows new villians to take on the spotlight villain (like clue master) who like joker are not restrained from hurting batman in ways joker would not. its not of to say that batman knew how joker impacted crime and the dangers his death would lead.its kind of like daredevil take away kingpin whos strength in the city held back his enemies and with him gone you have a power vaccum in crime waiting to be filled.
Why Batman doesn't kill The Joker? Because it is selfish. He can't sacrifice himself (and his "stupid" rules, sorry) to stop that walking piece of garbage (if he himself cant he should let Jason to finish him). I can not believe that the pain experienced by every time he suffer from his" family" and even death of normal people is less than the pain suffered by simply killing him. Apart from that, in many countries in the world are right to executions, and what these people who are doing their "job" getting rid of "junk" from the world you call assassins or murderers? Why do people think that the first deliberate taking of life belonged to the "wrong" person and it is a bad, terrible thing (I do not mean that right now everyone should killed) and maybe the first time was a good man who wanted to stop this evil one or just to protect he's own life. I know it's not all that simple but that's just my feelings, and you agree with them or not. Returning to Batman, I know that this is how it behaves has a big influence tragedy of his childhood, but for God he still is an intelligent man and should finally look through the eyes that is the only and right way to end it, and if he was really "strong" is expected to end on only one killed but It may simply not be ... in this respect Jason Todd aka Red Hood > Batman. He really can not do this one step to stop the "mass" of murder and despair? Sory but it is not my hero ... Even at the end of the Man of Steel Sups can "do it" for good sake. Remember that all just my personal feelings and they do not have to argue with your.
You are mistaken about Kant on multiple levels. 1. In the Categorical Imperative every being with "Vernunft" (Reason) gains something he calls "Würde" (Dignity). If one breaks the Maxim proposed by Kant, they lose their Dignity. And without Dignity you lose you position as a being with Reason. Therefore killing a murderer is not wrong according to Kant. 2. You cited one of the earlier revisions of the Categorical Imperative. Kant created multiple versions of the Categorical Imperative. The one you cited was the very first. There are many inconsistencies with that version, but it is the still most well-known one. However, if you wish to portray Kants position of ethics you should cite the "Reich-der-Zwecke-Formel" (The Kingdom of Ends Formulation). Source: I study philosophy as a secondary subject, and I am German. I read the original Texts.
hey dude, your videos are really nice! I started to watch the ones explaining the Killing Joke ending and now this one mixing philoshophy theories and comics, which I think it's really interesting and awesome! (and you explain it all so fluently) keep up the good work!
The problem with trying to ascribe Batman's actions as being moral or immoral is that it doesn't take into account how Batman feels about himself. When Batman shoots Darkseid with the intention of killing him, for instance, it's not necessarily that Batman is saying that it means it's okay to kill sometimes. It may mean that Batman is saying "For this, I become a bad guy."
You make that point that if Batman were to kill Joker it wouldn't be such a big deal because his virtue would eventually lead him back on the right path. Well, I believe everyone would agree that there are very few beings as virtuous as Superman. He killed The Joker. Remember what happened? Yeah, he went completely Authoritarian! Remember in the Justice League cartoon when Superman broke HIS one rule and laserbeamed Lex Luthor' s head off? Justice Lords anyone? When you kill someone, it makes it much easier to kill the next someone who even remotely reminds you of the person you killed. After a while, you're no longer a symbol for justice, you're a tool of murder and a symbol of fear. Don't be so certain that Batman has the resolve to kill once and only once. Everyone knows he and The Joker are already mirrored reflections of one another. Do you really think it would take that much to send the Dark Knight we all know and love over the deep end after he's taken a life? Even if it is one as vile as The Joker.
+Rasheed Amir That' arguments a bit simplistic. I haven't those particular dark superman story arcs, but I have read kingdom come and Injustice gods amongst us. In both cases supes was pushed over the edge by a lot more than just killing one person. In kingdom the death of lois lane lead to him going on a short rampage before hanging up his cape for good. And in Injustice it was the blowing up of metropolis completely broke him. even for criminals who kill someone in the heat of the moment feel that weight of that on their conscience and avoid doing so in the future. Which would make for an even better backstory if batman brutally murdered his parents killers, then was so horrified by his actions he avoided repeating them at all costs. As It stands I suspect that batman needing people like the joker to give him purpose was done intentionally. He constantly beats henchmen to the point where they'll be crippled for life, But draws the line at the serious threats,.Hell half his major villains became what they are because the dark knights war on crime left them physically, and mentally damaged. Mean while he tends to neglect his life as Bruce Wayne, letting his company run itself while he broods in a cave by day, and cripples street thugs by night. This isn't exactly the healthy behavior of a balanced individual, especially since he could do much for Gotham as Bruce Wayne than batman. Think of how much more effective the overwhelmed Gotham pd would be if they had access to some of those toys batman hordes to himself, or the good his company could do by providing they people of Gotham with decent jobs, and fundraising for the poor, and sick. Far less people would have to resort to crime, and get beaten senseless by batman.
Joker is the Palpatine of DC. He simply guilt trips Batman into believing that if Batman killed him, “there’s no turning back.” While Joker gets a ‘pass’ to kill everyone around him just because he’s ‘mentally ill’ 🙄 So how does Batman killing other villains eg. the bad guys in the Warehouse scenes and Ra’s al ghul in BB (He didn’t have to save him) fare ‘less’ than Batman killing Joker? This is the one thing Jokersexuals has never been able to explain convincingly.
I always liked the explanation that he gave in the end of Death of the Family (the original printing, not the TPB, which changed a LOT of dialogue). The idea was that he had a fear that if he ever killed the Joker... the city would replace him with something worse. Or bring him back to life somehow. Something terrible would happen. And let's face it, he's right. That's how comics work!
Should Batman kill Joker? Well, let's see... Joker is a psychologically unstable individual that caused countless deaths and injuries of gotham city residents, his very existence is endangering the safety of the city and there is literally no reason why he shouldn't be put to death. Yeah, he should.
Why the fuck doesn't Batman just advocate for the death penalty for the worst of criminals, or even just once for the Joker? Or get somebody else to kill Joker for him?
+Tango Down because it's morally the same thing. As a matter of fact by doing so an attempt is made to shift the responsibility away from Batman, which can be argued to be even worse than puling the trigger yourself.
+Connor Monie (batboy) The Indigo rings seek out the monsters of the universe who lack compassion or guilt for their crimes and forces it upon them. Killing Joker would be too easy and it's probably what he would want. Instead make him truly feel guilt for all his actions. The first Indigo lantern killed men,women and children with glee but after a few years with the ring she couldn't be without it and didn't want to go back to the way a she was when it lost power for a bit
The reason Batman does not kill Joker is simple. justification. like with Superman in InJustice. you go and rationalise, justify killing a person ONCE..... you can do it again. and again. and again and again and again and again and again. 'I kill this guy, I save hundreds', 'I kill this guy no one has to suffer again', 'if I kill this guy then there is no chance he will ever break a law or become another Joker' once you rationalise and justify something you lessen inhibitions and it is easier to rationalise and justify the same action on weaker cases until you become the reason you first committed the act if he kills the Joker he could become WORSE than the Joker
If Batman believes he will kill random innocent people in a killing spree, for killing an absolutely terrible person like the Joker, than Batman is clearly too mentally unstable for his job.
That's not true. Polic have had to kill criminals sometimes. They all didn't all of a sudden turn into mass murderers. Heck even normal people have had to kill people for their own safety. Ex. Someone breaks into their house and the house owners kill in self defense, the house owners don't then become mass murderers. It's stupid reasoning and that superman comics is dumb
Scott N. - thanks for the Kant, Virtue/Aristotle, and Utilitarian references! - we have a comic geekout turned into a philosophical debate - thus combining two of my fave things. Well played All.
I would like to see (If there isn't, to write) a Batman story were he makes his "No killing" code. As we all know, Golden Age Batman didn't have said code, but all the others next to him in the main continuity have that code. And I would love to see the transition. If someone knows if this story exist, please give me the information so I can look it up. If there isn't and you know it for sure, tell me so I get starting to work on the fanfic.
Awesome video! Fun topic that everyone loves mixed with a quick, easy, digestible format. Pictures help with visualization while the examples assure trustability and help understanding. It really makes you think and I really loved this video. Can't wait for part two!
@@kristopherawojobi5986 Because he would gladly break his "No Killing Rule" to kill heroes who actually saves lives becomes villains, But he won't kill villains even if they kills and keeps on killing. He could easily brain wash villains into being good but he let them kill over and over. He's just a wanna be hero guy that can't handle killing a villain.
+Bat Fan What made that Thomas Wayne Batman interesting was his background, as well as how different he was from normal. If main continuity, "mainstream", Batman were to kill, then the stories could get dull as Batman'll be like "Hey Joker" *snaps Joker's neck* No more Joker. "Hey Penguin" *riddles said bird man with bullets* No more Penguin "Riddler, riddle me this, what's greed and purple and dead?...YOU" *stabs Riddler with a batarang* No more Riddler Batman's rogues gallery could not come back, and we would just be introduced to more and more characters that would die in their first story arc. Not to mention, the whole morale dilemmas would be gone. Thomas Wayne Batman works as a killing Batman because he is different, and it seems refreshing, but deep down, you don't want that to be what regular Batman becomes.
I can't ever find the "part 2" videos you mention. can you guys add a link to the description after the next video is up? Or say the full name of the next video so it's a little easier to find? TY for your consideration and for these awesome and informative videos.
I think the thing stopping Batman from killing Joker lies in his belief of the slippery slope. Sure, killing Joker is a hard choice, but after he's decided to do it, the next person he decides to put down might not be as bad and the one after that would be even less terrible until he's killing all criminals. Sure, there are many things that could stop that pattern, but Batman has proven that he's willing to fight through anybody who tries to stop him from doing what he thinks is the right thing. Essentially, he would always hit the bottom of that slippery slope unless someone puts him down first. Another reason is that, while most people within DC Comics view Batman as incredibly violent, they also look up to him as one of Earth's Finest. Now, most of the people who look up to him won't amount to much, but every once in a while, they decide to become a hero. Sure, a lot of them would still use lethal force, but think of how many more would kill if Batman did. Why would upstart heroes care about killing if one of, if not, the greatest hero on earth doesn't care?
im somewhere in between the extremes, i do not believe the batman should be actively seeking out to kill the joker, however it should at least be considered if things get too insane in any given scenario. I personalty think the reason the batman does not kill the joker isn't cause of any moral code, but because batman needs the joker. I think batman feels that without the joker, he would not have a proper mirror of what he could become if he loses his center of what he is. I think batman is using the joker as a way to keep himself centered and to have a constant reminder of what himself going crazy might look like.
I agree with you. Batman needs the Joker for his own sanity. The Joker is what Batman could have become had he let go. They are both products of crime and chaos of this world. That's why they can relate to each other and see eye-to-eye; Almost like best friends. Batman is afraid if he lets go for but a moment that it would set him off into letting go completely. He's always balancing himself on the edge of sanity. One slip up and he can fall. It's why he's so hard on himself whenever he blunders.
After watching the video, my personal theory is that Batman doesn't kill the Joker *precisely* because of how much he wants to see him dead. If he ever "crossed that" *particular* "line", he probably wouldn't be able to satisfy himself with a "clean" death (like a bullet, or a bladed weapon through the heart etc.). He'd probably degenerate in torturing him into a very slow, very painful death, like what he talked about in _Under the Hood_. So I feel it's not just the "line" of no-killing he's afraid of crossing, it's the line of becoming every bit as cruel and thus monstrous as the Joker is, simply because of how much he hates the Joker specifically, more than any other threat to Gotham or the World.
+Ckador So? Lots of important historical figures were racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc., but that doesn't take away from their great contributions to society. Their beliefs were simply products of their time. If you had a time machine and went back to when Aristotle lived, you would find that pretty much everyone was racist.
+Ckador In the ancient times it's harder to find someone who wasn't racist. I sometimes wonder: How did we get to the progressive persent? How did people know in the past that it's bad and it should be changed? Does that mean that there were always people knowing how horrible their own times were? I mean, was there a soldier in the Trojan war who thought: "Man, I wish everyone would have freedom of speech."
I understand Bruce's thinking in reference to 'Gotham would just send someone worse'. By killing The Joker, you make him a martyr for anarchists, and as such, you might inspire not just one, but hundreds of copycats, who may all be infinitely worse than the Joker. In one example, it's canon that The Joker is not a rapist, or at least, he didn't have forced penetrative sex with Barbara Gordon, I still maintain that he did perpetrate a sex crime (stripping someone nude and photographing them without their consent is still a sex crime). What if the murder of The joker inspired a copycat who is willing to take sexual assault to its extreme? Joker also does perpetrate his crimes methodically, rather basing the intent behind them on what would be funny or ironic, and sometimes just to prove a point. What if his murder inspired someone who was willing to commit genocide for sport, as in, someone who killed simply to see how many they could kill? Then it doesn't just become a Gotham problem. It becomes a national problem. Also, in killing The Joker, you admit that there is no way he could be rehabilitated. This means that everyone as insane or more so, can either only remain that way, or get *worse*. I feel this is the best reason, I feel that killing the Joker would just inspire crime, rather than prevent it. Fixing the Joker is the only way to solve him... And Batman has two fists and the patience to throw him in Arkham over and over again until it happens.
+Matthew Stevens The issue I have with the sentiment of "he would become a martyr", and supposedly a focal point for anarchists to rally around, is why haven't they done so already? You say one might come around that's even worse; I argue, why hasn't one so far? In-universe, the Joker has been incarcerated/rehabilitated numerous times, and yet, no permanent way to stop him has been done. One might argue, sure, in a meta sense the creators need a way to keep bringing him back to add drama and excitement, but the result is still the same that the Joker escapes: people get killed/maimed, property gets damaged, Joker gets captured, repeat cycle ad infinitum. So if the anarchists of this world see there are no repercussions to their actions, what's to say the death of one would incite further crime? Also, so if a psychotic supervillain causes mayhem and destruction, and is steadfastly adamant about not changing his ways, it's too far over the line to permanently disable/kill, but beating him repeatedly over and over, and possibly causing further mental damage is fine? Alright then.
Kant's philosophy is based around intentions. Consequences don't matter as consequences are relative to factors that are not in one's control, and therefore irrelevant. Good intentions +Bad consequences= Good Will. Bad intentions + Good consequences= Bad Will. The categorical imperative is used to determine of intentions are good or bad as the video states. Firstly, you have to set up a maxim, or general rule, then you test that maxim by universalizing that maxim, a world where all rational beings have that maxim in mind. Secondly, that maxim has to pass for logical consistency with the addition of universalizing it. Thirdly, there is desire. Would you want to live in that world? Also, you must consider consent as well. If the maxim doesn't pass any of the tests then the intention is bad. I didn't really present Kant's ethics but I think I gave a really watered down version of it. I like the application of Aristotle's virtue theory on Batman; however, Mill came into mind as well since Batman does all he can defend Gotham from those who terrorize it. Mill's utilitarianism justifies killing if it creates the greatest amount of true happiness for the greatest amount of people. True happiness is security. Happiness is also relevant to those in the future, so people who are relevant, subtly relevant, and arguably subtly relevant, and people in the future who are relevant to those people must be taken into consideration as well. There is the whole act utilitarianism that involves all those hypothetical calculations of base pains and pleasures and intellectual pains and pleasure, but that also takes forever to explain. Through Mill's utilitarianism, Batman should have ended the Joker awhile ago. Disregarding the history of Batman contradicting his philosophy in earlier entries, I honestly just believe the writers just want to keep Batman's no killing motto as it is unique to him. It's interesting to see a dark and disturbed person as Bruce Wayne limiting himself to no killing. If there is anything I have to conclude with is that I hope future movie adaptations of the dark knight fully flesh out and delve into great detail on this matter. . . Telltale Batman!!!! Batfleck!!!!
Batman can't kill the joker. Not for himself but for Gotham city. Batman is an example that regardless of the actions of others we can always choose to do the right thing. By killing joker he'd basically be telling the people of Gotham it's okay to bend the rules for the sake of the "greater good". And that type of mindset is a REAL slippery slope.
Amazing job! Subscribed! Love the philosophical additions and breakdowns on the topic of the video. Keep up the good work; I look forward to watching future videos from this splendid channel.
what I never really understood about killing the joker argument is that why hasn't the court sentenced him to death yet ?.... batman doesn't need to do it and it is definitely a legal way to dispose of the joker considering that he has definitely proven himself as a public safety hazard....
It probably comes down to that whole the superhero persona as an incorruptible symbol thing. It's difficult enough to justify vigilantism when it doesn't involve killing. Vigilante murderers are actually terrifying in a way that vigilantes or even murderers aren't. They set a precedent that it's ok for anyone to kill whoever they personally think deserves it. And yeah maybe we trust Batman to kill only the people that actually do deserve it, but would we trust anyone? Where exactly do we draw the line between a vigilante murderer and just a plain old terrorist? Both are ideologically driven to kill people they personally think deserve to die for what they consider the greater good.
You know we keep talking should he kill or not what we should be saying is it okay for him to cripple him for life that way both sides get what they want
Well your argument is flawed on several points, severely flawed. Point One: You become as bad as him You say that Batman has deemed killing fine in situations before. Except for the fact those were not only retconned, they became outdated modes of thinking. Specifically the Golden Age. So what if he snapped peoples necks and threw them on swords, that was another Batman, a different Batman. Characters evolve, calling Batman's modern day depiction a contradiction is flawed as he is an updated version of the same characters with different morals and codes. The same thing with Darkseid, you cannot compare a god of pure evil to Joker... a mentally deranged sick person. Comparing a former version of a character and a differing threat are entirely seperate issues and have no place in the same counter argument. Point Two: Crossing a Line You make the claim that he can just kill Joker and just him. Problem is you made reference to the fact before hand that killing one person opens the floodgates. Why shouldn't Batman kill more people? He did it to Joker who was pretty horrible, so kill them too. They won't be a problem anymore and everyone they will kill won't die. Done. If you can rationalize killing one person you can rationalize everyone. Period. It's easy. You reference this before and then ignore it. You answered this question with your previous point. Point Three: Cost/Consequence The second you start making the claim that innocent lives should be traded to kill the guilty you become just as guilty. You are making a moral argument for trading good people to be rid of one bad person. This is the same horrible argument people make to keep the Death Penalty around when people claim there are innocent people who get executed. If you are not horrified by the prospect of sentencing an innocent man to death there is something wrong with you. If you then claim we should keep the death penalty around just to be safe, then you're agreeing to murder innocents along with the guilty. You are advocating kill them all, let God sort them out. In terms of criminal justice, that is unacceptable. People aren't cards you can pass around at your leisure. Azrael is immoral, period. Point Four: Someone Worse Superman killed Joker... and as a result became a tyrant. So there you go, killing the Joker leads to worse things. If you want, look at Arkham Knight for another clear example of that. The Joker dies and it opens the door to a criminal mastermind bringing the rogues together for one last shot... and his plan works for all intents and purposes. Consistently we see that Joker's death causes more problems than it solves. Overall, this question that is constantly brought up is pointless and stupid. But not for any of the reasons you mentioned. No, it's because the fundamental point is flawed itself. Why does it have to be Batman? Because he's the title character? Because he's the hero? Because Joker is his arch enemy? Problem is, Joker and Batman do not exist in a vaccum. Batman is not the arbiter of right or wrong here. We have a justice system for a reason. If anyone should kill Joker is should be said justice system. Gotham's state could easily change it's laws concerning the definition of insanity. This would make Joker liable for his actions and mean he'd be sentenced to Death. Hell, if we want to be realistic, it doesn't even have to get that far. During one of Joker's many attempts on the lives of innocent citizens one SWAT sniper could end it easy and after a brief questioning period he'd be let go consequence free save for his conscience. The law allows officers to execute lethal force if they believe the lives of themselves or others are in danger. Hell, given Gotham's reputation as a city of corrupt cops, things don't even have to be done legitimately. Some wannabe hero could have Joker locked up in a paddywagon on the way back to Arkham. Then BAM, shoot him in the head. He stages a scene, claims Joker got loose and went for his gun. He gets to be a hero for a day. And if Batman finds out he's a liar, big whoop, it's unlikely any jury will convict him and he still has the designation of the cop who killed the biggest criminal in Gotham So before you ask why Batman doesn't kill Joker, stop. That's a red herring. Batman is not responsible for solving every little problem in Gotham. Expecting him to be the one to shoot Joker or snap his neck or whatever is basically demanding he put blood on his hands that you refuse to do yourself. It's asking him to do the dirty work and that is irresponsible in so many ways, placing the ultimate arbiter of justice entirely on Batman. But that's not his job. He's there to provide a public service in a city that is flawed and corrupted. He's not there to play every step of the criminal justice system for you, he's there to enable it to do the job it's supposed to do. Bruce Wayne doesn't want to be stuck doing this forever, he wants the city to get better on it's own. He starts playing executioner you might as well just replace him with Judge Dredd because at that point you don't want a police officer or super hero. You want someone to take away your collective responsibility as derived by the modern criminal justice system and to replace it with their own self-contained moral judgement and code. You're asking for fascism. Good luck with that.
Another flaw with the utilitarian philosophy, how is he to judge the killer for being a bad person? Bruce Wayne has been shown to be Christian multiple times and while it's not canon he's Christian, this is a main theme of batman and Batman is a conservative libertarian and old world values person, which usually Includes Christianity. But back to the theme. One of the main themes of Christianity is forgiveness and judging. The only person who can truly judge people is Jesus bcuz we all sin and that you can't judge another person. Batman believes everyone can be rehabilitated and that if they can be, we should try. A big reasoning for this is best explained through a quote in injustice 2 "if there's one truth I've learned in my years of fighting crime, it's that every criminal is the hero of their own story". Yes truly how can we judge others for sins when we ourselves sin? We can't put outselves above eachother. We all sin and we shouldn't judge for it. When one person who thinks they're right puts down others who they deem are wrong, they become no better than those they condemn. Who are they to say they are wrong? A good example of this is the free speech problem in America. There are many groups like ANTIAFTA who call for free speech, by assaulting people? They go out and assault nazis. They then become no better than the Nazis themselves. No one's saying the Nazis are right, but they are entitles to their opinion. And then ANTIAFTA goes out and calls for free speech by silencing people. It goes back to not judging people, but rather judging yourself before others. Every criminal is the hero of their own story, so who are you to judge them? How do you determine they are wrong, when you, yourself, are so wrong?
I love it when someone points out that Bruce Wayne is a Christian, an autist comments "there's no such thing as God or sin". I wish I was Batman so I could hand these people from the Batplane or throw them into a vat of acid.
Its now more of a religious debate about belief. If batman were to kill, he would indirectly putting himself as an equal to God as he thinks he is able to judge for himself who gets to live and die. And as you pointed out, batman is a christian and i would assume an avid christian if he sticks to such a moral code. He would most likely have known about this and would, at all cost, avoid this scenario. However, the question here remains due to a possible counterargument: is it better for the benefit of society to kill joker or the benefit of your reputation to let him live? Before any answers, i would like to quote Christ: “let him who has not sinned cast the first stone”
Fruit Punch I agree, but I think u should let him live, not to keep your reputation(something Batman obviously doesn't care About) but simply bcuz it's right.(while I entirely agree with Batman, this is an opinionated matter)
Well without a legitimate compass on what is right or wrong, we still cant judge and therefore have gone nowhere. Which means it would only be left for logic to do the work. Logic, in this matter, would simply lead to joker's ultimate death. With his death, the satisfaction that the dead have been justifiable avenged and will also benefit society by removing another possibility of another terrible crime.
+CopperFTW he shot down tons of cars in his batwing, he used someon'es gun to shoot people down, he blew up a flame thrower while someone was still holding it, he deflected a grenade back to its sender, etc. need i go on?
It may be more simple than that. I mean maybe there could be no Batman without Joker. Maybe killing the Joker will kill Bruce Waynes idea of who Batman is and/or what Batman is to others. Batman would absolutely never be the same afterwards whether he continues fighting crime or not. Another idea that I have that I hardly ever hear about is that maybe he believes that criminals aren't necessarily evil. That simply because they make bad choices doesn't mean they can't also do some good somewhere down the line. Joker is evil and more than likely never going to come back but to give up on one person would probably be like giving up on everyone. Again, destroying his morals. Changing who Batman is. But when it comes down to it, it's not about "Should or shouldn't." Batman can't. As simple as that. Bruce Wayne, maybe, but Batman... He's an idea.
In reality, joker wouldn't be escaping so often, so it wouldn't be exactly necessary. But when we talk about comic books, I don't really care, because it's comic books. Now, when DC does a very serious and realistic story the problem is that the joker is escaping too often. You can't have a realistic and serious story and at the same time have the criminals get away that easily.
+Tyrone Carl Macapagal Pffft a hundred times worse. It took a different dimension of Superman to take out Injustice Superman. If Injustice Superman tried killing killer Batman then well that was easy. Then again it was because of plot on why Superman didn't get his ass taken out so early.
Judging from the previous instances when Batman either killed (or attempted to kill) people, it's pretty safe to assume that he practices some form of "modern" utilitarianism which is hybridized with the sort of moderation that is espoused in virtue ethics. (It's abundantly clear from these examples that he doesn't follow the categorical imperative to a t). This sort of approach is the type espoused in the book Moral Tribes, which discusses that utilitarianism isn't so much about "happiness" as much as it is a sense of "deep pragmatism" that seeks to optimize the quality of conscious existence. It also implies a certain amount of conservativism in one's actions because one needs to be reasonably certain that actions will not induce harm and/or would improve the situation in an ethically consistent matter. It doesn't necessarily mean that we are limited to those actions that have certain, positive outcomes (especially since, as you mentioned, this would require knowing all possible derivatives of an action), but that we ought to act in ways that we reasonably believe will bring about improvements. Or, at the very least, that we similarly believe that it will not increase harm. So Batman's killing of people to prevent imminent, mass danger when there was no other alternative? That's acceptable in this system. Killing an individual who you know is beyond reform and poses an imminent threat to the lives of others (assuming that they will just escape any sort of prison)? Again, acceptable. You would think that the Joker falls into this latter category but there are a few of critical ways where he differs. First: The Joker's shtick is that he's entirely chaotic. Does that chaos usually result in the suffering of people? You bet. Does that mean he's guaranteed to do that again? Not at all. To imply that Batman could honestly develop a reasonable conclusion on what the Joker will do next would be nonsensical. No one knows. And there's a whole different murky calculus that happens when something only exists as a potential threat as opposed to a definite one. I won't go into it here, but I'd argue that it's entirely reasonable for a contemporary utilitarian to say "potential != actual" and spare his life. Second: There's no REAL reason to think that the Joker can't be locked up forever. Outside the universe, we know that DC likes to come up with some justification to spring him just to keep milking the cash-cow--but there is no coherent in-universe explanation. It's just chance. He gets busted out by someone else, he gets released by the powers that be, he takes over the asylum, etc. It's just happenstance that happens to go well for the Joker. Sure someone could say "that's just what he does" but when so much of it is realistically beyond his control, you can't say that's what he "DOES." that would be like imprisoning someone who kept running people over because he kept accidentally buying faulty cars. Blame and attributions of "skill" (for lack of a better term) requires control. Joker has very little in his release so prison is not a foregone conclusion. Third: There is no reason to assume that killing the Joker would improve Gotham's situation. While I agree that Batman's reasoning may be dubious (he does deal with universe-threatening stuff on the reg), but it doesn't negate the fact that Gotham's criminal underground is an ecosystem. For every ounce of disorder he introduces he also maintains a certain amount of order over the disparate henchmen that he employs and in the other criminals who take pause. What happens when you remove one of the apex predators from the food web? It's insanely difficult to know for certain but it usually isn't good. Some thing worse as an individual entity may not take his place (and it wouldn't mean much if it did) but something worse as a condition of increased chaos might. And that could be disastrous for Gotham. Do I personally think that the Joker should die? I tend to lean yes. Then again, I don't hold myself to the sort of standard that Batman needs to in order to maintain his legitimacy as a "hero." Because of that, I don't think that HE should kill the Joker. But it's admittedly beyond me why the government hasn't executed him by now.
my friend once came up with an idea that the only thing that is stopping the batman from killing the joker/anybody-he-wants-dead is the writers. come to think about it, eliminating someone from an arc will make some scenes less interesting thus leading to an unsuccessful series (not looking at GoT).. soooo... yeah... BTW I love your vids man! keep up the good work ^^ !
My theory is that Batman shouldn't kill because it shouldn't be his decision to make that call. For whatever criticism you can levy against Batman, an individual already acting outside the loose confines of the law and society, you should exponentially increase that same criticism for the very society he operates in. They do not do enough to contain, correct, or execute the Joker despite being fully aware of his repeated crimes, and his continued existence is a testament to showing society's failing. If Batman kills the joker, this problem ceases to exist, and the burden of responsibility is lifted on society to improve itself, until the next rogue or an even worse joker comes along and is allowed to flourish yet again.
With Death in the family showing that under the red hood takes place after the killing joke, it could be that with the joke batman stopped shining the light between the buildings, hes lost hope and its turned to rage, now he would want to kill the joker but still can't, and even then batman is still human, he can think while hes full of rage thinking about the innocent lives joker has taken but then he can reflect and want to make that attempt to help him
12:09 "How could we be positive that killing {Joker} would be justified?" My background is in artificial intelligence and machine learning. In this field, we justify our predictions about what will most like occur based on what has occurred most often in the past given the same or a very similar set of conditions (called features). At the point where someone decides that Joker should die, the only thing we can rely on is that, all things being equal, based on his past actions, Joker is far more likely to kill again rather than die of natural causes. An AI/ML algorithm would predict Joker to kill again before predicting his death by natural causes. Given the highly negative value of Joker's murders, based on who, what, and how, for starters, killing Joker becomes the clear choice.
Here's a bit of a radical idea. If Batman really can't kill the Joker and no one else is bothering and Arkham doesn't work. Why doesn't Batman imprison him somewhere in the Batcave? Deep within where he can't do any harm in a prison Batman himself made. Maybe even one underground.
Regardless of whether Batman 's reasoning is "right", it's justified as a choice he would make. It's about character. His personality is obsessive. Otherwise he wouldn't be Batman in the first place. He is obsessed with being Batman, with observing, analyzing and preparing, and with preventing death. He watched his parents die right in front of him. He obsessively hates the very idea of death, and murder in particular. He can't stand the thought of causing, or even failing to prevent, a death. Batman is a genius, but he's also, on some level, a child who never quite grew up, which means he's going to make some choices based on obsession that may or may not seem bizarre to some people. That includes taking in Dick Grayson because he watched Dick's parents die and (in his mind) failed to save them, just as he failed to save his own parents, and in his obsessed mind, he couldn't let that go. The "this could have terrible consequences; I can barely adult, let alone parent" thing didn't factor into it, because Batman's obsessiveness overrides his genius. Sometimes a strength, sometimes a weakness, it is what it is. It's what makes him Batman. Whether "the line" is truly morally justified or not is a debate that could go on for ages and is ultimately pointless, because it doesn't matter whether Batman is right. It matters whether it makes sense for the character. The whole reason he put on that mask is so he can control the chaos and stop death. That's not a rational thing to do. It's an obsessive thing to do. If he kills the Joker, he'll have failed his own obsession and effectively killed Batman. Of course, this all depends on the writer, but this is the version of Batman that makes sense to me personally, which is why I think his "I don't have to save you" moment in Batman Begins was a mistake.
![Should Batman murder the Joker? [Discussion]](/img/1.gif)
"If you kill a killer the number of killers don't change"
-Batman
"That's why I don't stop at one killer"
-Punisher
punisher sucks read more me
Nah man. Nightwing.
+Dead Pool Why not both?
But like... If I kill one hundred killers then the number goes down by 99 though
Brian Ogle
I think Batman's point here was that if he kills a killer, someone else will take his place.
I've always assumed that the Batman realises at some level that he is himself mentally disturbed and therefore needed this rule which he is never to break in order to keep himself in line. He knows he can't trust his own judgement on a case by case basis and therefore must fall back on absolutes that he has set from the very beginning.
Something like this... he is not entirely sane, so he has his code. This thought was clarified in Miller's DKR, persists in my favorite batman stories like NolanVerse movies.
+John Kricorian (Krico) also why does everyone want him to be a killer the fact that he gets the job done without causing casualties is way more impressive than jist shooting a bullet. plus its the lawmaker or judges fault that joker kills more people not Batman.
kjfpFTW but batman still enables it by not ending it when he has the chance.
SquidAsylum who are you, the imaginary axis?
I thought this was the case as well. . .
My question is why hasn't Gotham City's government killed Joker. There's the insanity plea but I think Joker's past the point of having that scapegoat.
Good storyline on that - the Joker used poison stamps and indeed almost got the Death Penalty. But, whoops, plot twist. Pointed out also that most Prosecutors only care winning a case, not guilt or innocence since they are in it for their career, not for justice. So a criminal who can pull every defense and attorney out of the woodworks is usually ignored and even the government thinks 10x before going after.
Finally someone asks the same question as me
There was a good late 90s Batman story - "Joker: Devil's Advocate" where a new and non-corrupt prosecutor goes all out to give the Joker the death penalty at last - over a bunch of murders connected to his recent attempt to extort the Post office... But Batman has lingering doubts he might not be guilty.
I don't imagine he would even get a trial irl. He'd be labelled as a terrorist who threatens national security and would be shoot to kill by any cop who runs into him.
When you become a terroirist you are stripped of all your rights, the government can do whatever they want with you.
Possible answer: The Joker isn't actually criminally insane by any modern criteria, but Fictional New Jersey does not have the death penalty.
Just cripple Joker. Break his arms and legs, or paralyze him from the neck down. He can't escape from Arkham if he can't move.
Lol
+Logan Graves what if Harley is locked up
+Gear Shift Another villain would clone him and transplant his brain or something.
Which would probably also happen in Batman killed Joker I suppose.
Yeah cause I'm sure after what happened to Barbara he'd have no problem with crippling someone ( note the sarcasm)
the real question is why does batman keep preventing joker from killing himself?
Love.
You dont deserve that name
YES
Maybe he does not want him to die bc when joker die he will end his suffering through live
@@meh4294 so....batman keeps him alive so joker kills more innocents?? Got it
I do believe that one of the reasons Batman doesn't kill the Joker is in part due to he himself being a psychotic break waiting to happen... When Batman is revived in the Lazerous pit he is completely healed, trauma and all so he forgets about being Batman... this to me indicated that as Batman he is a walking jigsaw puzzle of mental illness's which he barely has a handle on... And only through such strong willpower does he not completely break mentally... If he killed the Joker he may in deed end up breaking mentally and perhaps in turn becoming what he himself hates the most?
I'm really no expert but I hope this little theory is at least enjoyable to read :)
+Commander ChaosWulff I see Batman as a necessary alternate persona for Bruce to channel his trauma into. He's essentially becoming fear in order to treat his own fear.
Hes batman. He already most likely has witnessed gruesome things like murders happen. Murdering 1 guy who deserves it wont "send him over the edge"
Thx
@@righteyeblind23666 witnessing a murder and then committing the murder are very different things
@@CosmicNerdStudios not entirely batman can kill sometimes without letting it over take him!
So the other question no one asks is: Why must Batman BE THE ONE to kill Joker? Any random person could kill Joker when he's in cuffs. They keep upgrading security, there is no reason for anyone in Gotham to expect Joker to escape very time. (but WE know)
Joker does what he does half the time because of Batman. Or to get under his skin. And joker is a supervillain...it's definitely Batmans responsibility at that point. And Bruce took the responsibility to protect Gotham against forces the police struggled with.
It's also one thing to execute someone when already defeated, and another to kill them in battle to insure they don't do any more damage before you win, or if you die in said battle. There's a big difference between killing a pow unarmed in cold blood, and killing them in a fire fight on the battlefield.
I always thought batman didn't kill the joker because it wasn't his choice to make. In the animated series episode 'The Under-dwellers' he said, "I don't pass sentence. That's for the courts."
Which begs the question...why doesn’t the state just execute him? I mean, in the new comics Catwoman is put on death row, but the Joker? WHAT BLASPHEMY!”
@@alexandersmith7061 How can they put Catwoman on death row when all she does is steal stuff she hasn't taken a life? But yet the Joker has killed numerous people & every time hes caught he's sent to the crazy house. No, Joker is not insane he knew what he was doing & didn't care if it was wrong or right he did it for kicks yet the govt won't give him the electric chair? That's messed up that new comic will die out real quick.
I miss the Golden age characters. These new comics are too edgy
That's another good reason. Personally, I don't think it is the job of us humans to decide when somebody dies. Self-defense, unexpected, passion death, etc. are another story. I'm talking about premeditated killing. My moral code comes a lot from 12 years of Catholic school and I'm very grateful for it.
But he has gone out of his way to save joker many times
Causing probably thousands of deaths
Another thing that's been overlooked in this video is that Batman's one rule only applies to humans. In extreme situations Batman as well as all of the signature members of the Justice League are willing to kill things that are inhuman, this includes space aliens (Ironic I know) Darkseid is more than sufficiently inhuman for him to be killed without breaking the one rule.
He doesn't really kill aliens though. Mindless drones, reanimated corpses, unalive doomsday clones, sure. Even feral animals if he can't help it. But living, thinking, sapient beings? No. Darkseid was basically the only exception and that was because the entire multiverse was literally being destroyed just by Darkseids presence. And because he knew he wouldn't survive so it didn't matter.
@@campbellsoup93 multiverse? wasnt it just universe?
If I were batman...I'd pretty much just cripple The Joker...
make sure he can never walk or move again....but hey...he'd still be alive...
am I a bad person? well...it's either I cripple one man or watch him kill thousands more...
+Maluki Mbesa Agreed. Has the comic books ever mentioned that? It's technically not killing and hey if he can never walk again maybe he'll "reflect" on his actions. Or higher a bunch of people to break Batman's back... again. But fail because of author or win and then bring him back... Again.
+Demetrius Prime lol he actually did in the dark knight returns it's an animated movie but it is brilliant...I would recommend you read the comic but I personally think the animated movie is better...
just visually
you can watch it online free...he snapped jokers neck...but Joker just killed himself
+Maluki Mbesa oh yeah I saw that but I meant again but you know new 52
+Demetrius Prime yeah I get you now brother.
he should just cripple him lol
You are a my hero.
I feel like the best option would just be to improve Gotham's prison
That might work for a good portion of Arkham's inmates but I doubt it would work for joker.
Won’t work on most some people just need to be ended like pedos
The best option would be to allow joker to die
apparently batman kills people in the new movie without thinking about it
See that shit huh ??
+Random Person Please say 'spoiler' when you talk about an actual scene, in the future. - Nali
+NerdSync i think that more of a psa than a spoiler
+Mavrickindigo All good. Just getting a fair few blatant spoilers being reported or commented on. Not knowing what to expect is part of the fun, that's all. - Nali
I think the only live action movies where batman didn't kill were "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Batman and Robin"
To me, his comment about not being able to come back after crossing that line has to do with his being on the edge of insanity. He is on the brink of becoming a monster and the only thing preventing his mental instability from taking over is the practice of constant unwavering virtues. He knows himself well enough to know he could not come back from even one lapse into vice.
+darthcarnage12 I really like this point. I don't think we focus on this enough but Batman is someone who is mentally unstable and knows it. He is aware of his own mental illness and manages his condition. I'm in a similar situation and I have a number of rules that I've set up for myself that allow me to manage my condition. I don't think this is something that is brought up enough with regards to Batman and is maybe an issue deserving of a video.... hint....
@@kennethdick07 Then why is he batman?
@@ZayToDiffrent
Because he needs him.
Compare the typical Bruce Wayne to the other iterations that exist in the DC multiverse and you see a pattern emerge. Each one experiences a trauma that fundamentally changes their lives. While the main version chooses to channel that trauma into the Bat persona, the others lack that outlet and transform into dangerous criminals, each with the same drive, intelligence, and strength of will but are lacking in the morality and guilt that made Bruce who he is today. It seems that Batman is not the rule but rather the exception and that Bruce Wayne was always meant to be a monster.
Than why does he goes out of his way to save joker
Batman: "No more! All the people I've murdered...by letting you live"
Joker: " I never kept count"
Batman: " I did"
Joker: " I know. And I love you for it."
Some of the final lines shared by them in the dark knight returns before batman kills joker in the tunnel of love...
Okay, I recently heard something that is perfect for Comic Misconceptions: the idea is that Joker is actually similar to Deadpool in that he knows he is just a comic character and that is why he acts the way he does. Is this true, or another misconception?
He doesn't have to kill him Scott.
He just doesn't have to save him.
Nice reference to Batman Begins.
I hate that scene so much. It literally goes against Batman's rule. Batman's rule isn't just about not actively killing someone but also about not letting them die when he can prevent it. Him letting Ra's die when he could have saved him broke his rule and would have made comic Batman sick.
@@campbellsoup93 batman has killed people many times. Smh. That rule is a loose one that changes from writer to writer.
@@bern9642 No he has not. WTF are you talking about? The rule is not loose at all. Since the 1940's, the past 80 years, that has been the ONE defining trait that has stuck around with the main continuity character regardless of who writes him.
I can think of only 1 time in the main continuity (not elseworlds like DKR or alternate evil versions like Owlman) where Batman has actually broken his rule.
That was in Infinite Crisis when he shot Darkseid. Darkseid, God of evil. Whose very presence was enough to destabilize the entire multiverse. That was what it took for him to actually kill someone.
Of course, there were times when he's come close. Mostly with the Joker. But all of these times he was reminded of his rule and held back. He doesn't kill.
Except in movies of course.
I wonder if Bruce Wayne has read Immanuel's work
Probably
Possibly.
+KumaoftheForest If so, I'd like to know whether he believes synthetic a priori judgments are possible.
+KumaoftheForest but...Emanuel Kant write! -buh dum tissss!-
Who is Bruce Wayne? We're talking about Batman here.
Great episode Scott!
This all reminds me of a conversation from the pages of Civil War (or a comic published during Civil War) where somebody (I think Maria Hill) in favour of the Superhuman Registration Act talks about all the times Spider-Man has chosen, without state input, to put Green Goblin in jail rather than kill him, suggesting that it's Spidey's fault whenever the Goblin busts out and does more evil.
But it seems stupid to blame Spider-Man, because he never took that decision away from the state at all. Once he turns Green Goblin over to the authorities, the decision to imprison or to execute the Goblin rests on the state.
And similarly, if the Joker keeps getting out of jail because he keeps being allowed to live, blame can be placed on the judicial system for not executing him just as much as it can be placed on Batman.
Yea batman won't kill you he'll just leave you in paralyzed and in a coma for the rest of your life on the brink of death but just anough to where you'll survive to feel all of it. love it.
Even better! Batman won’t kill, but he will cripple any and every thug that’s so broke they are willing to work for the joker and leave them with a hospital bill from the hospital Bruce owns so ridiculous that they will have to take a loan at the bank Bruce owns and forever be in debt and paying money to… you guessed it Bruce! And when you think about it like that it makes sense he won’t kill, prisoners and people who have been beat within a inch of life are worth exponentially more.
*Azrael* is not only a funny cat, he's also my kind of hero.
I'm pissed with *Batman*, because, ok, you don't want to kill... but at least cripple him! Rip off his eyes, make the fucking *Joker* harmless.
But that's *Batman*, we can argue about his moral code...
What actually SURPRISE me is *Gotham's law!* Come friggin on!! He's a god damn murderer!!! And you put him into an 'asylum'?!? Trow him in a Fort Knox alike jail and trow away the key!!!
There is no Death Penalty in a city stuffed with criminals, like *Gotham*!?!? In that case just capture him and make a present box for a Texas prison (I know you can do it).
-BETMARK-
You're hilarious. Insanity plea, you cant send someone with a mental illness onto death row. As time progresses the insanity case will get far more strict as to whether or not it's truly insanity due to advancements in neuro science but we really cant tell yet, if you're evaluated by a psychologist to be insane then they cant give you the death penalty. This is why many people consider psychology to be a dumb realm of science, as of now, it's based off of a lot of theories, we just dont know enough about the human brain.
+Nyxato
So, ok, if we take for good that DC Universe still share our same laws (for some reason), why nobody else never tried to kill that clown?
He don't have super powers, he's just a way too lucky human.
I mean some other pissed vigilante, some *Red Hood*, or just a cop, sick of that situation.
Just pick a random Movie Hero of the 80s/90s, they always kill everyone.
Or (and this is my last 'card up the sleeve') what about *Amanda Waller*?
She killed a lot of people for what she tought it was 'a just cause'.
No mercy for the *Death Squad* team, and she also tried to kill the parents of *Terry McGinnis*, just to create a new *Batman*...
No? Nobody else in that universe is *Azrael* alike?
I think a god called *'That character bring us too much money to kill him'* is protectin that pagliaccio, not the law.
-BETMARK-
BETMARKonTube What do you mean "for some reason", why would Gotham not have the same laws? It takes place in America.
There's probably tons of people that have tried to kill the Joker.
Why are we talking about this? I was talking about death row and the insanity plea.
+Nyxato
I'm sorry, the second part of my comment was just something I wanted to add to the discussion.
About the 'some reason': I think is weird that a world where super villains and any kind of terrorist are on the daily menu still have the same rules of our 'universe'.
We have some kinds of laws and rules, based on our actual situation: normal criminals and rare insane dangerous mass murderers.
I'm quite sure, if our cities would start to be filled by those kind of criminals, we would quickly make new laws and 'exceptions'.
BETMARKonTube Sure but we're only talking about the Joker not the entire DCU.
The way I see it batman is a murderer anyway for not killing Joker.
No, no he’s not. Batman is not responsible for the Joker’s actions. The Joker and those who willingly aid him are responsible, and only them. Batman may allow the Joker to live, but it is the Joker who chooses how to use his life.
And if it is so important that Joker die, then why hasn’t he been given the death penalty? If our own courts aren’t willing to condemn Joker to death, then don’t they share the same blame as Batman? Actually, if we’re playing the blame game then the courts deserve far more than Batman. After all, they’re the ones with the legal authority to decide if Joker should die, whereas Batman is a guy in tights.
Here’s another question: if the courts are unwilling to kill Batman, then why must Batman do it? To ask Batman to kill a man we’re not willing to order killed ourselves is not only cowardly, it’s asking Batman to declare himself judge, jury and executioner. That’s too much power for any man.
@@magnusprime962 Batman is indirectly response. Batman saves the joker time and time again even going outta of his way to save the joker.
@@magnusprime962 yes he is.
Batman is 100000 percent confident that joker will get out and kill again. And again. And again. He knows it to be true, he is capable of stopping it, but he doesn't. To protect his own image of himself. That's enabling.
@@magnusprime962 Batman literally let's a flawed legal system fail time and time again to handle the joker Batman knows the courts won't hold joker knows Gotham citizens know this.
Batman is a villgnate meaning it he acts outside the law to do what the law couldn't or wouldn't do the moment he puts that costume on he took on the responsibilities of making sure Gotham is safe
Which it isn't everyday joker murders thousands of innocent men women children traumatized them all
Many characters have called Batman out for his utter incompetence dealing with the joker
Batman doesn't kill people, he just breaks every bone in their body.
+Richard Uberton And leaves them in the street miles from the nearest hospital. LOOPHOLE
Why can't Batman break every bone in the Joker's body?
@@edr3158 beacuse he loves him more than any innocent joker killed
Soldiers kill enemy soldiers; cops kill armed criminals; Batman should be able to kill the Joker.
Soldiers are ordered to kill, cops can only be permitted to kill batman is himself he chooses what he chooses
Batman is neither a soldier of a cop.
jokers immortal so its pointless read batman end game
Batman, like the Joker is mentally insane, he has a vengeance from the death of his parents, years before he became the Batman. Most people will get over death, but Bruce never did. He set standards for himself, in order to avenge his parents, but became addicted to the crime fighting. It's not that he doesn't want the Joker dead, it's just that he enjoys the chase and all his battles with the clown prince. Joker and Batman aren't so different, the only difference is that Joker went over the edge and started killing, and became addicted to it, just like how Batman is addicted to the crime fighting, but if he became a killer, he would end up killing all of the criminals, and with no criminals to kill, he might plunge into insanity and become an even stronger Joker.
Evan Buck Actually no you are so wrong, Batman despite being all serious and brooding, he is very optimistic. The reason he really doesn’t kill the Joker is because he thinks he can rehabilitate everyone.
I think there's another consideration into why Batman doesn't kill Joker and it's not about his role as a symbol. Batman is a symbol of Justice that drives fear into the hearts of criminals, because it is unknown yet very real.
If Batman killed Joker after a set number of horrendous crimes Joker did, Batman would be basically creating a line that says "Anything beyond this point warrants death". This would make him less of a symbol of justice, and more of a system of justice. A subjective measurement of justice. Batman can't allow himself to seem subjective, because subjective standards can be argued with and dismissed.
I believe that one character in the DC universe where I doubt Batman would feel any guilt for killing nor should he is Solomon Grundy not just because he's a zombie so he's already technically dead but one of Solomon Grundy's superpowers is in fact Resurrection so even if you kill him he'll pretty much come back.
I like this guy. He takes comic books to a whole new level. I learned....much more more than I thought I would learn.
dude i’m genuinely very pleasantly surprise by how in-depth you went into Kant’s specific form of deontology and how well and accurately you apply it to Batman’s flawed deontology. Amazing analysis
You can come back after you crossed the line. Except if you intentionally cross the line, because you know you can come back. That's how addicted people think.
Exactly. Like with cigarette smokers: "I'm not addicted. I can stop whenever I want." Meanwhile they still keep smoking with no intention of stopping. Same thing
+Akil Brazier Yeah, if Batman would buy into that argunemnt, that would be way worse than just killing Joker.
algi Right. He'd become another Frank Castle aka the Punisher
(Warning: this comment contains spoilers for Arkham City)
For those of you who don't know, in Batman: Arkham City, the Joker dies, and Batman obviously is very hurt by this. When Talia, his ex-girlfriend dies, he doesn't shed a tear, but when Joker dies, no one is more upset than Batman (except Harley Quinn). Speaking of Harley Quinn, her and Joker's relationship is very similar to Joker's and Batman's. No matter how many crimes Joker has committed, Batman can't kill him. No matter how many times Batman has put Joker in Arkham Asylum, if Joker kills Batman, he would be in misery. Joker thinks that Batman is the only one that cares for him, when Joker detonates a bomb, possibly killing hundreds of innocent people and blown off the roof by Bane in Arkham Origins, Batman jumps off the roof to save him, which is why he thinks that he's the only one that cares about him, because if someone like Commissioner Gordan saw him blow up a building, he for sure wouldn't save him.
Batman is not a hero, that's an obsessed lover
Robot Chicken had Joker die on the electric chair
You can make a strong case that the Joker should be killed (depending on whether you think redemption is possible, and how you feel about the death penalty in general) but it's a lot harder to argue that Batman should be the one to do it.
Batman's not there to play God and decide who lives and who dies; he's there to stop criminals and deliver them to justice.
Darkseid falls into a different category - rather than a police action against a criminal, the confrontation with him was a battle in a war against an invading force - and the difference between war and police action is that in war you don't have a judicial authority to turn the offenders over to (though there's a scene in Jingo by Terry Pratchett where Captain Carrot ends a war by arresting both armies on several thousand counts of conspiracy to disturb the peace) - maybe if Darkseid could be subdued, he could have been turned over to the Guardians of the Universe or New Genesis, but, as an enemy combatant, it was entirely appropriate for Batman to try to kill him.
Despite political rhetoric, the "war on crime" is not a war, and Batman's role in it does not extend to having the right to kill.
And even if the law can't deal with the Joker, what about Gotham's less law-abiding citizens? The Joker is as much a threat to them as to anyone else - having him around has to be bad for business - so how come none of them have fitted him for a concrete overcoat?
Ultimately, the reason Batman shouldn't kill the Joker is because it's not his place to dispense justice.
I feel Batman should kill villains only if its the only solution or if the villain goes too far. I like CW's Arrow's and Marvel's Daredevil's approach.
There is no real satisfying in-universe reason for Batman not to kill the Joker. The real answer is he's one of the most popular villains in possibly all of comics and pop culture, Batman's comics/cartoons/movies just wouldn't be the same without him.
I mean can anyone truly imagine the Batman comics without the Joker ever making another appearance ever again?
Though honestly, the DC universe reboots every few years. Why not have Batman kill Joker and deal with the consequences... then just wait for another Flashpoint/New 52/Rebirth/Crisis event to retcon it and bring Joker back?
Mats Martensson it still comes down to, every time Joker escapes and kills a hundred people, it's kind of on Batman for not taking him out.
I kinda think in the Joker's case with his exaggerated kill count, yeah. Batman has the power to stop him, while most of the time the cops get killed trying to stop his schemes. Sure, taking him in like 3 or 4 times and hoping for the best is one thing, but Batman has thrown Joker into Arkham hundreds of times, and he escapes hundreds of times and kills tons of people each time.
I still say, shortly before the next big Crisis event resets everything, have Joker do something so sick, so inhumane that Batman snaps and kills him, and deals with the emotional consequences. Then BAM another Crisis/New 52/Rebirth and the Joker never died and Batman never killed him, and possibly Superman never had a son, etc but at least we got some interesting what if scenarios to see how Bats would handle himself if he did kill the Joker.
Also I'm sure there are technical reasons too. And I'm not just talking about what Bruce said in death of he family, but consider this: joker might, in all his craziness, have some sort of contingency plan to blow up the city in the event of his death or maybe his henchmen would turn into flesh-eating zombies or maybe Harley would exact revenge on the whole city for the death of her "puddin". You never know what joker is capable of and like I said it's just too big of a risk
Another point which goes overlooked is his no kill rule also helped him to build and keep trust with Jim Gordon
I tend to lean towards utilitarianism. You can make all the moral and philosophical arguments you want, but what comfort is that to all the people who suffer and die in the meantime? In effect, Batman's refusal to kill Joker is pure selfishness. Countless people have suffered and will continue to suffer so that Batman can keep his conscience clean. Every time Joker kills that's a life that Batman was willing to spend to keep his own morality unblemished. It would be more heroic to sacrifice his own virtue for the wellbeing of others.
Honestly, this is kinda where I lean on this issue.
Joker is the worst of them all. All of Batmans other villains have a reason for why they do what they do. Penguin just wants to be rich while Rash Al Ghoul wants to rid the world of all the scum that inhabits it. Joker has no reason for killing anyone and that is why he has to die.
Also why he's the best villain.
if you kill one Joker, then two more will show. X3
Hail Joker (Hydra)
well if you want to what would happen if batman killed the joker take arkham knight for example were batmans fear came true.if you read the arkham knight comic it was said that joker was a loose cannon and his antiques in a sense protected batman from other forces and with his death crime became more organized so much so that every villian made a plan to kill batman in every shape of the word. What batman said is true gotham would send something worse than him not only because without joker there is no chaos in crime but it allows new villians to take on the spotlight villain (like clue master) who like joker are not restrained from hurting batman in ways joker would not. its not of to say that batman knew how joker impacted crime and the dangers his death would lead.its kind of like daredevil take away kingpin whos strength in the city held back his enemies and with him gone you have a power vaccum in crime waiting to be filled.
This is one of the best content of youtube video I have seen in a while. Tks NerdSync.
Why Batman doesn't kill The Joker? Because it is selfish. He can't sacrifice himself (and his "stupid" rules, sorry) to stop that walking piece of garbage (if he himself cant he should let Jason to finish him). I can not believe that the pain experienced by every time he suffer from his" family" and even death of normal people is less than the pain suffered by simply killing him. Apart from that, in many countries in the world are right to executions, and what these people who are doing their "job" getting rid of "junk" from the world you call assassins or murderers? Why do people think that the first deliberate taking of life belonged to the "wrong" person and it is a bad, terrible thing (I do not mean that right now everyone should killed) and maybe the first time was a good man who wanted to stop this evil one or just to protect he's own life. I know it's not all that simple but that's just my feelings, and you agree with them or not. Returning to Batman, I know that this is how it behaves has a big influence tragedy of his childhood, but for God he still is an intelligent man and should finally look through the eyes that is the only and right way to end it, and if he was really "strong" is expected to end on only one killed but It may simply not be ... in this respect Jason Todd aka Red Hood > Batman. He really can not do this one step to stop the "mass" of murder and despair? Sory but it is not my hero ... Even at the end of the Man of Steel Sups can "do it" for good sake. Remember that all just my personal feelings and they do not have to argue with your.
you deserve more subscribers, your videos are amazing :)
You are mistaken about Kant on multiple levels.
1. In the Categorical Imperative every being with "Vernunft" (Reason) gains something he calls "Würde" (Dignity).
If one breaks the Maxim proposed by Kant, they lose their Dignity. And without Dignity you lose you position as a being with Reason. Therefore killing a murderer is not wrong according to Kant.
2. You cited one of the earlier revisions of the Categorical Imperative.
Kant created multiple versions of the Categorical Imperative. The one you cited was the very first.
There are many inconsistencies with that version, but it is the still most well-known one.
However, if you wish to portray Kants position of ethics you should cite the "Reich-der-Zwecke-Formel" (The Kingdom of Ends Formulation).
Source:
I study philosophy as a secondary subject, and I am German. I read the original Texts.
hey dude, your videos are really nice! I started to watch the ones explaining the Killing Joke ending and now this one mixing philoshophy theories and comics, which I think it's really interesting and awesome! (and you explain it all so fluently) keep up the good work!
The problem with trying to ascribe Batman's actions as being moral or immoral is that it doesn't take into account how Batman feels about himself. When Batman shoots Darkseid with the intention of killing him, for instance, it's not necessarily that Batman is saying that it means it's okay to kill sometimes. It may mean that Batman is saying "For this, I become a bad guy."
Dude. This is the best episode ever.
Joker and batman can't live without each other. Batman needs joker and joker needs Batman.
true
#ture
+JodnelChasma Chasma you mean #true
#ture
+Abe How does Batman "need" Joker?
You make that point that if Batman were to kill Joker it wouldn't be such a big deal because his virtue would eventually lead him back on the right path. Well, I believe everyone would agree that there are very few beings as virtuous as Superman. He killed The Joker. Remember what happened? Yeah, he went completely Authoritarian! Remember in the Justice League cartoon when Superman broke HIS one rule and laserbeamed Lex Luthor' s head off? Justice Lords anyone? When you kill someone, it makes it much easier to kill the next someone who even remotely reminds you of the person you killed. After a while, you're no longer a symbol for justice, you're a tool of murder and a symbol of fear. Don't be so certain that Batman has the resolve to kill once and only once. Everyone knows he and The Joker are already mirrored reflections of one another. Do you really think it would take that much to send the Dark Knight we all know and love over the deep end after he's taken a life? Even if it is one as vile as The Joker.
+Rasheed Amir
That' arguments a bit simplistic. I haven't those particular dark superman story arcs, but I have read kingdom come and Injustice gods amongst us. In both cases supes was pushed over the edge by a lot more than just killing one person. In kingdom the death of lois lane lead to him going on a short rampage before hanging up his cape for good. And in Injustice it was the blowing up of metropolis completely broke him.
even for criminals who kill someone in the heat of the moment feel that weight of that on their conscience and avoid doing so in the future. Which would make for an even better backstory if batman brutally murdered his parents killers, then was so horrified by his actions he avoided repeating them at all costs.
As It stands I suspect that batman needing people like the joker to give him purpose was done intentionally. He constantly beats henchmen to the point where they'll be crippled for life, But draws the line at the serious threats,.Hell half his major villains became what they are because the dark knights war on crime left them physically, and mentally damaged.
Mean while he tends to neglect his life as Bruce Wayne, letting his company run itself while he broods in a cave by day, and cripples street thugs by night. This isn't exactly the healthy behavior of a balanced individual, especially since he could do much for Gotham as Bruce Wayne than batman. Think of how much more effective the overwhelmed Gotham pd would be if they had access to some of those toys batman hordes to himself, or the good his company could do by providing they people of Gotham with decent jobs, and fundraising for the poor, and sick. Far less people would have to resort to crime, and get beaten senseless by batman.
Joker is the Palpatine of DC. He simply guilt trips Batman into believing that if Batman killed him, “there’s no turning back.” While Joker gets a ‘pass’ to kill everyone around him just because he’s ‘mentally ill’ 🙄 So how does Batman killing other villains eg. the bad guys in the Warehouse scenes and Ra’s al ghul in BB (He didn’t have to save him) fare ‘less’ than Batman killing Joker? This is the one thing Jokersexuals has never been able to explain convincingly.
Towards the end, I was like, "bring up injustice. He's gonna bring up injustice. YAS!!! "
I always liked the explanation that he gave in the end of Death of the Family (the original printing, not the TPB, which changed a LOT of dialogue). The idea was that he had a fear that if he ever killed the Joker... the city would replace him with something worse. Or bring him back to life somehow. Something terrible would happen. And let's face it, he's right. That's how comics work!
Should Batman kill Joker? Well, let's see... Joker is a psychologically unstable individual that caused countless deaths and injuries of gotham city residents, his very existence is endangering the safety of the city and there is literally no reason why he shouldn't be put to death. Yeah, he should.
Maybe he should pull a Superman and labotomize him like he does in Red Son :p
The problem is that in comics, people wont stay dead
Why the fuck doesn't Batman just advocate for the death penalty for the worst of criminals, or even just once for the Joker? Or get somebody else to kill Joker for him?
+Tango Down
because it's morally the same thing. As a matter of fact by doing so an attempt is made to shift the responsibility away from Batman, which can be argued to be even worse than puling the trigger yourself.
Thomas Herrlich Why? Joker deserves the most painful death possible. Either way he has to die
This is why the Joker works best when used sparingly. It might also be why it used to be a thing for him to apparently die after every appearance.
Nice shelve setup show us a tour next time
Someone should just give Joker an Indigo ring
+Enmanuel Gandulla Compassion? Why?
+Connor Monie (batboy) The Indigo rings seek out the monsters of the universe who lack compassion or guilt for their crimes and forces it upon them. Killing Joker would be too easy and it's probably what he would want. Instead make him truly feel guilt for all his actions. The first Indigo lantern killed men,women and children with glee but after a few years with the ring she couldn't be without it and didn't want to go back to the way a she was when it lost power for a bit
Ohhhh. That makes since.
The reason Batman does not kill Joker is simple. justification.
like with Superman in InJustice.
you go and rationalise, justify killing a person ONCE..... you can do it again. and again. and again and again and again and again and again.
'I kill this guy, I save hundreds', 'I kill this guy no one has to suffer again', 'if I kill this guy then there is no chance he will ever break a law or become another Joker'
once you rationalise and justify something you lessen inhibitions and it is easier to rationalise and justify the same action on weaker cases until you become the reason you first committed the act
if he kills the Joker he could become WORSE than the Joker
If Batman believes he will kill random innocent people in a killing spree, for killing an absolutely terrible person like the Joker, than Batman is clearly too mentally unstable for his job.
@@ringboysforlife I agree with you
Then Batman is more evil than the Joker.
That's not true. Polic have had to kill criminals sometimes. They all didn't all of a sudden turn into mass murderers.
Heck even normal people have had to kill people for their own safety. Ex. Someone breaks into their house and the house owners kill in self defense, the house owners don't then become mass murderers.
It's stupid reasoning and that superman comics is dumb
Today I learned I'm a Utilitarian.
Scott N. - thanks for the Kant, Virtue/Aristotle, and Utilitarian references! - we have a comic geekout turned into a philosophical debate - thus combining two of my fave things. Well played All.
John Kricorian (Krico) ...?
I would like to see (If there isn't, to write) a Batman story were he makes his "No killing" code. As we all know, Golden Age Batman didn't have said code, but all the others next to him in the main continuity have that code. And I would love to see the transition.
If someone knows if this story exist, please give me the information so I can look it up. If there isn't and you know it for sure, tell me so I get starting to work on the fanfic.
Awesome video! Fun topic that everyone loves mixed with a quick, easy, digestible format. Pictures help with visualization while the examples assure trustability and help understanding. It really makes you think and I really loved this video. Can't wait for part two!
1:21 Batman V Superman... That's all I'm gonna say
Batman is a Hypocrite!
No
+fraximusprimea3 Why?
@@kristopherawojobi5986 Because he would gladly break his "No Killing Rule" to kill heroes who actually saves lives becomes villains, But he won't kill villains even if they kills and keeps on killing. He could easily brain wash villains into being good but he let them kill over and over. He's just a wanna be hero guy that can't handle killing a villain.
batman killing will make him boring
+zero You ever read flashpoint?
but that's not what we're arguing
+Bat Fan
What made that Thomas Wayne Batman interesting was his background, as well as how different he was from normal. If main continuity, "mainstream", Batman were to kill, then the stories could get dull as Batman'll be like
"Hey Joker" *snaps Joker's neck*
No more Joker.
"Hey Penguin" *riddles said bird man with bullets*
No more Penguin
"Riddler, riddle me this, what's greed and purple and dead?...YOU" *stabs Riddler with a batarang*
No more Riddler
Batman's rogues gallery could not come back, and we would just be introduced to more and more characters that would die in their first story arc. Not to mention, the whole morale dilemmas would be gone.
Thomas Wayne Batman works as a killing Batman because he is different, and it seems refreshing, but deep down, you don't want that to be what regular Batman becomes.
Lol hell yea
+Lil Savage Batman did that in Earth-51 and that place become boring before been destroyed
I can't ever find the "part 2" videos you mention. can you guys add a link to the description after the next video is up? Or say the full name of the next video so it's a little easier to find? TY for your consideration and for these awesome and informative videos.
I think the thing stopping Batman from killing Joker lies in his belief of the slippery slope. Sure, killing Joker is a hard choice, but after he's decided to do it, the next person he decides to put down might not be as bad and the one after that would be even less terrible until he's killing all criminals. Sure, there are many things that could stop that pattern, but Batman has proven that he's willing to fight through anybody who tries to stop him from doing what he thinks is the right thing. Essentially, he would always hit the bottom of that slippery slope unless someone puts him down first.
Another reason is that, while most people within DC Comics view Batman as incredibly violent, they also look up to him as one of Earth's Finest. Now, most of the people who look up to him won't amount to much, but every once in a while, they decide to become a hero. Sure, a lot of them would still use lethal force, but think of how many more would kill if Batman did. Why would upstart heroes care about killing if one of, if not, the greatest hero on earth doesn't care?
I am just going to say it, "Batman just Kant"
Batman wouldn't even let The Punisher kill Joker.
im somewhere in between the extremes, i do not believe the batman should be actively seeking out to kill the joker, however it should at least be considered if things get too insane in any given scenario. I personalty think the reason the batman does not kill the joker isn't cause of any moral code, but because batman needs the joker. I think batman feels that without the joker, he would not have a proper mirror of what he could become if he loses his center of what he is. I think batman is using the joker as a way to keep himself centered and to have a constant reminder of what himself going crazy might look like.
I agree with you. Batman needs the Joker for his own sanity. The Joker is what Batman could have become had he let go. They are both products of crime and chaos of this world. That's why they can relate to each other and see eye-to-eye; Almost like best friends.
Batman is afraid if he lets go for but a moment that it would set him off into letting go completely. He's always balancing himself on the edge of sanity. One slip up and he can fall. It's why he's so hard on himself whenever he blunders.
I have enjoyed your precious videos, but this one is my favorite so far! Keep 'em coming!
After watching the video, my personal theory is that Batman doesn't kill the Joker *precisely* because of how much he wants to see him dead.
If he ever "crossed that" *particular* "line", he probably wouldn't be able to satisfy himself with a "clean" death (like a bullet, or a bladed weapon through the heart etc.). He'd probably degenerate in torturing him into a very slow, very painful death, like what he talked about in _Under the Hood_. So I feel it's not just the "line" of no-killing he's afraid of crossing, it's the line of becoming every bit as cruel and thus monstrous as the Joker is, simply because of how much he hates the Joker specifically, more than any other threat to Gotham or the World.
Meanwhile the Keaton's Batman is standing over here like emmm so killing is bad? :P
many people don't know that Aristotle was unbelievably racist he believes in a subjugation of people solely based upon skin color....
And?
+Ckador Which was also very common at the time.
And virtually every other time where stupidity exists
+Ckador So? Lots of important historical figures were racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc., but that doesn't take away from their great contributions to society. Their beliefs were simply products of their time. If you had a time machine and went back to when Aristotle lived, you would find that pretty much everyone was racist.
+Ckador In the ancient times it's harder to find someone who wasn't racist. I sometimes wonder: How did we get to the progressive persent? How did people know in the past that it's bad and it should be changed? Does that mean that there were always people knowing how horrible their own times were? I mean, was there a soldier in the Trojan war who thought: "Man, I wish everyone would have freedom of speech."
If I lived in Gotham. Yes. He should kill him. But as a comic reader. No he's too fantastic
I understand Bruce's thinking in reference to 'Gotham would just send someone worse'. By killing The Joker, you make him a martyr for anarchists, and as such, you might inspire not just one, but hundreds of copycats, who may all be infinitely worse than the Joker. In one example, it's canon that The Joker is not a rapist, or at least, he didn't have forced penetrative sex with Barbara Gordon, I still maintain that he did perpetrate a sex crime (stripping someone nude and photographing them without their consent is still a sex crime). What if the murder of The joker inspired a copycat who is willing to take sexual assault to its extreme? Joker also does perpetrate his crimes methodically, rather basing the intent behind them on what would be funny or ironic, and sometimes just to prove a point. What if his murder inspired someone who was willing to commit genocide for sport, as in, someone who killed simply to see how many they could kill? Then it doesn't just become a Gotham problem. It becomes a national problem. Also, in killing The Joker, you admit that there is no way he could be rehabilitated. This means that everyone as insane or more so, can either only remain that way, or get *worse*. I feel this is the best reason, I feel that killing the Joker would just inspire crime, rather than prevent it. Fixing the Joker is the only way to solve him... And Batman has two fists and the patience to throw him in Arkham over and over again until it happens.
+Matthew Stevens The issue I have with the sentiment of "he would become a martyr", and supposedly a focal point for anarchists to rally around, is why haven't they done so already? You say one might come around that's even worse; I argue, why hasn't one so far? In-universe, the Joker has been incarcerated/rehabilitated numerous times, and yet, no permanent way to stop him has been done. One might argue, sure, in a meta sense the creators need a way to keep bringing him back to add drama and excitement, but the result is still the same that the Joker escapes: people get killed/maimed, property gets damaged, Joker gets captured, repeat cycle ad infinitum. So if the anarchists of this world see there are no repercussions to their actions, what's to say the death of one would incite further crime? Also, so if a psychotic supervillain causes mayhem and destruction, and is steadfastly adamant about not changing his ways, it's too far over the line to permanently disable/kill, but beating him repeatedly over and over, and possibly causing further mental damage is fine? Alright then.
Kant's philosophy is based around intentions. Consequences don't matter as consequences are relative to factors that are not in one's control, and therefore irrelevant. Good intentions +Bad consequences= Good Will. Bad intentions + Good consequences= Bad Will. The categorical imperative is used to determine of intentions are good or bad as the video states. Firstly, you have to set up a maxim, or general rule, then you test that maxim by universalizing that maxim, a world where all rational beings have that maxim in mind. Secondly, that maxim has to pass for logical consistency with the addition of universalizing it. Thirdly, there is desire. Would you want to live in that world? Also, you must consider consent as well. If the maxim doesn't pass any of the tests then the intention is bad. I didn't really present Kant's ethics but I think I gave a really watered down version of it.
I like the application of Aristotle's virtue theory on Batman; however, Mill came into mind as well since Batman does all he can defend Gotham from those who terrorize it. Mill's utilitarianism justifies killing if it creates the greatest amount of true happiness for the greatest amount of people. True happiness is security. Happiness is also relevant to those in the future, so people who are relevant, subtly relevant, and arguably subtly relevant, and people in the future who are relevant to those people must be taken into consideration as well. There is the whole act utilitarianism that involves all those hypothetical calculations of base pains and pleasures and intellectual pains and pleasure, but that also takes forever to explain. Through Mill's utilitarianism, Batman should have ended the Joker awhile ago.
Disregarding the history of Batman contradicting his philosophy in earlier entries, I honestly just believe the writers just want to keep Batman's no killing motto as it is unique to him. It's interesting to see a dark and disturbed person as Bruce Wayne limiting himself to no killing. If there is anything I have to conclude with is that I hope future movie adaptations of the dark knight fully flesh out and delve into great detail on this matter. . .
Telltale Batman!!!! Batfleck!!!!
Batman can't kill the joker. Not for himself but for Gotham city. Batman is an example that regardless of the actions of others we can always choose to do the right thing. By killing joker he'd basically be telling the people of Gotham it's okay to bend the rules for the sake of the "greater good". And that type of mindset is a REAL slippery slope.
oh I wouldn't kill Poison Ivy either ;)
Me niether
The Dark Knight Returns??
+Pratik Gedam Exactly! How could everyone miss that?
And also the real reason a younger Batman cannot kill the Joker. It's an old Batman who does it.
Amazing job! Subscribed! Love the philosophical additions and breakdowns on the topic of the video. Keep up the good work; I look forward to watching future videos from this splendid channel.
what I never really understood about killing the joker argument is that why hasn't the court sentenced him to death yet ?....
batman doesn't need to do it and it is definitely a legal way to dispose of the joker considering that he has definitely proven himself as a public safety hazard....
It probably comes down to that whole the superhero persona as an incorruptible symbol thing. It's difficult enough to justify vigilantism when it doesn't involve killing. Vigilante murderers are actually terrifying in a way that vigilantes or even murderers aren't. They set a precedent that it's ok for anyone to kill whoever they personally think deserves it. And yeah maybe we trust Batman to kill only the people that actually do deserve it, but would we trust anyone? Where exactly do we draw the line between a vigilante murderer and just a plain old terrorist? Both are ideologically driven to kill people they personally think deserve to die for what they consider the greater good.
You know we keep talking should he kill or not what we should be saying is it okay for him to cripple him for life that way both sides get what they want
Dude your beard is buggin me.
Well your argument is flawed on several points, severely flawed.
Point One: You become as bad as him
You say that Batman has deemed killing fine in situations before. Except for the fact those were not only retconned, they became outdated modes of thinking. Specifically the Golden Age. So what if he snapped peoples necks and threw them on swords, that was another Batman, a different Batman. Characters evolve, calling Batman's modern day depiction a contradiction is flawed as he is an updated version of the same characters with different morals and codes. The same thing with Darkseid, you cannot compare a god of pure evil to Joker... a mentally deranged sick person. Comparing a former version of a character and a differing threat are entirely seperate issues and have no place in the same counter argument.
Point Two: Crossing a Line
You make the claim that he can just kill Joker and just him. Problem is you made reference to the fact before hand that killing one person opens the floodgates. Why shouldn't Batman kill more people? He did it to Joker who was pretty horrible, so kill them too. They won't be a problem anymore and everyone they will kill won't die. Done. If you can rationalize killing one person you can rationalize everyone. Period. It's easy. You reference this before and then ignore it. You answered this question with your previous point.
Point Three: Cost/Consequence
The second you start making the claim that innocent lives should be traded to kill the guilty you become just as guilty. You are making a moral argument for trading good people to be rid of one bad person. This is the same horrible argument people make to keep the Death Penalty around when people claim there are innocent people who get executed. If you are not horrified by the prospect of sentencing an innocent man to death there is something wrong with you. If you then claim we should keep the death penalty around just to be safe, then you're agreeing to murder innocents along with the guilty. You are advocating kill them all, let God sort them out. In terms of criminal justice, that is unacceptable. People aren't cards you can pass around at your leisure. Azrael is immoral, period.
Point Four: Someone Worse
Superman killed Joker... and as a result became a tyrant. So there you go, killing the Joker leads to worse things. If you want, look at Arkham Knight for another clear example of that. The Joker dies and it opens the door to a criminal mastermind bringing the rogues together for one last shot... and his plan works for all intents and purposes. Consistently we see that Joker's death causes more problems than it solves.
Overall, this question that is constantly brought up is pointless and stupid. But not for any of the reasons you mentioned. No, it's because the fundamental point is flawed itself. Why does it have to be Batman? Because he's the title character? Because he's the hero? Because Joker is his arch enemy? Problem is, Joker and Batman do not exist in a vaccum. Batman is not the arbiter of right or wrong here. We have a justice system for a reason. If anyone should kill Joker is should be said justice system.
Gotham's state could easily change it's laws concerning the definition of insanity. This would make Joker liable for his actions and mean he'd be sentenced to Death. Hell, if we want to be realistic, it doesn't even have to get that far. During one of Joker's many attempts on the lives of innocent citizens one SWAT sniper could end it easy and after a brief questioning period he'd be let go consequence free save for his conscience. The law allows officers to execute lethal force if they believe the lives of themselves or others are in danger.
Hell, given Gotham's reputation as a city of corrupt cops, things don't even have to be done legitimately. Some wannabe hero could have Joker locked up in a paddywagon on the way back to Arkham. Then BAM, shoot him in the head. He stages a scene, claims Joker got loose and went for his gun. He gets to be a hero for a day. And if Batman finds out he's a liar, big whoop, it's unlikely any jury will convict him and he still has the designation of the cop who killed the biggest criminal in Gotham
So before you ask why Batman doesn't kill Joker, stop. That's a red herring. Batman is not responsible for solving every little problem in Gotham. Expecting him to be the one to shoot Joker or snap his neck or whatever is basically demanding he put blood on his hands that you refuse to do yourself. It's asking him to do the dirty work and that is irresponsible in so many ways, placing the ultimate arbiter of justice entirely on Batman. But that's not his job. He's there to provide a public service in a city that is flawed and corrupted. He's not there to play every step of the criminal justice system for you, he's there to enable it to do the job it's supposed to do. Bruce Wayne doesn't want to be stuck doing this forever, he wants the city to get better on it's own. He starts playing executioner you might as well just replace him with Judge Dredd because at that point you don't want a police officer or super hero. You want someone to take away your collective responsibility as derived by the modern criminal justice system and to replace it with their own self-contained moral judgement and code. You're asking for fascism. Good luck with that.
Man, this has to be one of your best videos. Great teaser at the end!
man this is some great work and research. this helped me a lot in design and philosphy thanks so much
+Air Kang Glad you liked it!
Another flaw with the utilitarian philosophy, how is he to judge the killer for being a bad person? Bruce Wayne has been shown to be Christian multiple times and while it's not canon he's Christian, this is a main theme of batman and Batman is a conservative libertarian and old world values person, which usually Includes Christianity. But back to the theme. One of the main themes of Christianity is forgiveness and judging. The only person who can truly judge people is Jesus bcuz we all sin and that you can't judge another person. Batman believes everyone can be rehabilitated and that if they can be, we should try. A big reasoning for this is best explained through a quote in injustice 2 "if there's one truth I've learned in my years of fighting crime, it's that every criminal is the hero of their own story". Yes truly how can we judge others for sins when we ourselves sin? We can't put outselves above eachother. We all sin and we shouldn't judge for it. When one person who thinks they're right puts down others who they deem are wrong, they become no better than those they condemn. Who are they to say they are wrong? A good example of this is the free speech problem in America. There are many groups like ANTIAFTA who call for free speech, by assaulting people? They go out and assault nazis. They then become no better than the Nazis themselves. No one's saying the Nazis are right, but they are entitles to their opinion. And then ANTIAFTA goes out and calls for free speech by silencing people. It goes back to not judging people, but rather judging yourself before others. Every criminal is the hero of their own story, so who are you to judge them? How do you determine they are wrong, when you, yourself, are so wrong?
I love it when someone points out that Bruce Wayne is a Christian, an autist comments "there's no such thing as God or sin". I wish I was Batman so I could hand these people from the Batplane or throw them into a vat of acid.
Its now more of a religious debate about belief. If batman were to kill, he would indirectly putting himself as an equal to God as he thinks he is able to judge for himself who gets to live and die. And as you pointed out, batman is a christian and i would assume an avid christian if he sticks to such a moral code. He would most likely have known about this and would, at all cost, avoid this scenario. However, the question here remains due to a possible counterargument: is it better for the benefit of society to kill joker or the benefit of your reputation to let him live? Before any answers, i would like to quote Christ: “let him who has not sinned cast the first stone”
Fruit Punch I agree, but I think u should let him live, not to keep your reputation(something Batman obviously doesn't care About) but simply bcuz it's right.(while I entirely agree with Batman, this is an opinionated matter)
Mats Martensson following your comments, you sound awfully nihilistic
Well without a legitimate compass on what is right or wrong, we still cant judge and therefore have gone nowhere. Which means it would only be left for logic to do the work. Logic, in this matter, would simply lead to joker's ultimate death. With his death, the satisfaction that the dead have been justifiable avenged and will also benefit society by removing another possibility of another terrible crime.
Well know one told Zack Snyder that cos Batman deliberately kills about 25 people and It ruins the film
+Ciaran McGuinness Who did he kill? The only person he was going to kill was Superman, but he didn't, so...
+CopperFTW he shot down tons of cars in his batwing, he used someon'es gun to shoot people down, he blew up a flame thrower while someone was still holding it, he deflected a grenade back to its sender, etc. need i go on?
Ok, you win.
+CopperFTW wait, have you seen the movie?
Three times.
but is killing the joker batmans job? why should batman compromise his ideals for the failure of gothams justice system.
And where's the failure?
And if Batman doesn't want to kill the Joker, just let Jason Todd (Red Hood) kill the Joker.
It may be more simple than that. I mean maybe there could be no Batman without Joker. Maybe killing the Joker will kill Bruce Waynes idea of who Batman is and/or what Batman is to others. Batman would absolutely never be the same afterwards whether he continues fighting crime or not.
Another idea that I have that I hardly ever hear about is that maybe he believes that criminals aren't necessarily evil. That simply because they make bad choices doesn't mean they can't also do some good somewhere down the line. Joker is evil and more than likely never going to come back but to give up on one person would probably be like giving up on everyone. Again, destroying his morals. Changing who Batman is.
But when it comes down to it, it's not about "Should or shouldn't." Batman can't. As simple as that. Bruce Wayne, maybe, but Batman... He's an idea.
In reality, joker wouldn't be escaping so often, so it wouldn't be exactly necessary. But when we talk about comic books, I don't really care, because it's comic books. Now, when DC does a very serious and realistic story the problem is that the joker is escaping too often. You can't have a realistic and serious story and at the same time have the criminals get away that easily.
If Batman started killing...... It would be Injustice only a hundred times worse.....
+Tyrone Carl Macapagal Pffft a hundred times worse. It took a different dimension of Superman to take out Injustice Superman. If Injustice Superman tried killing killer Batman then well that was easy. Then again it was because of plot on why Superman didn't get his ass taken out so early.
Judging from the previous instances when Batman either killed (or attempted to kill) people, it's pretty safe to assume that he practices some form of "modern" utilitarianism which is hybridized with the sort of moderation that is espoused in virtue ethics. (It's abundantly clear from these examples that he doesn't follow the categorical imperative to a t). This sort of approach is the type espoused in the book Moral Tribes, which discusses that utilitarianism isn't so much about "happiness" as much as it is a sense of "deep pragmatism" that seeks to optimize the quality of conscious existence. It also implies a certain amount of conservativism in one's actions because one needs to be reasonably certain that actions will not induce harm and/or would improve the situation in an ethically consistent matter. It doesn't necessarily mean that we are limited to those actions that have certain, positive outcomes (especially since, as you mentioned, this would require knowing all possible derivatives of an action), but that we ought to act in ways that we reasonably believe will bring about improvements. Or, at the very least, that we similarly believe that it will not increase harm.
So Batman's killing of people to prevent imminent, mass danger when there was no other alternative? That's acceptable in this system. Killing an individual who you know is beyond reform and poses an imminent threat to the lives of others (assuming that they will just escape any sort of prison)? Again, acceptable. You would think that the Joker falls into this latter category but there are a few of critical ways where he differs.
First: The Joker's shtick is that he's entirely chaotic. Does that chaos usually result in the suffering of people? You bet. Does that mean he's guaranteed to do that again? Not at all. To imply that Batman could honestly develop a reasonable conclusion on what the Joker will do next would be nonsensical. No one knows. And there's a whole different murky calculus that happens when something only exists as a potential threat as opposed to a definite one. I won't go into it here, but I'd argue that it's entirely reasonable for a contemporary utilitarian to say "potential != actual" and spare his life.
Second: There's no REAL reason to think that the Joker can't be locked up forever. Outside the universe, we know that DC likes to come up with some justification to spring him just to keep milking the cash-cow--but there is no coherent in-universe explanation. It's just chance. He gets busted out by someone else, he gets released by the powers that be, he takes over the asylum, etc. It's just happenstance that happens to go well for the Joker. Sure someone could say "that's just what he does" but when so much of it is realistically beyond his control, you can't say that's what he "DOES." that would be like imprisoning someone who kept running people over because he kept accidentally buying faulty cars. Blame and attributions of "skill" (for lack of a better term) requires control. Joker has very little in his release so prison is not a foregone conclusion.
Third: There is no reason to assume that killing the Joker would improve Gotham's situation. While I agree that Batman's reasoning may be dubious (he does deal with universe-threatening stuff on the reg), but it doesn't negate the fact that Gotham's criminal underground is an ecosystem. For every ounce of disorder he introduces he also maintains a certain amount of order over the disparate henchmen that he employs and in the other criminals who take pause. What happens when you remove one of the apex predators from the food web? It's insanely difficult to know for certain but it usually isn't good. Some thing worse as an individual entity may not take his place (and it wouldn't mean much if it did) but something worse as a condition of increased chaos might. And that could be disastrous for Gotham.
Do I personally think that the Joker should die? I tend to lean yes. Then again, I don't hold myself to the sort of standard that Batman needs to in order to maintain his legitimacy as a "hero." Because of that, I don't think that HE should kill the Joker. But it's admittedly beyond me why the government hasn't executed him by now.
my friend once came up with an idea that the only thing that is stopping the batman from killing the joker/anybody-he-wants-dead is the writers. come to think about it, eliminating someone from an arc will make some scenes less interesting thus leading to an unsuccessful series (not looking at GoT).. soooo... yeah... BTW I love your vids man! keep up the good work ^^ !
My theory is that Batman shouldn't kill because it shouldn't be his decision to make that call. For whatever criticism you can levy against Batman, an individual already acting outside the loose confines of the law and society, you should exponentially increase that same criticism for the very society he operates in. They do not do enough to contain, correct, or execute the Joker despite being fully aware of his repeated crimes, and his continued existence is a testament to showing society's failing. If Batman kills the joker, this problem ceases to exist, and the burden of responsibility is lifted on society to improve itself, until the next rogue or an even worse joker comes along and is allowed to flourish yet again.
With Death in the family showing that under the red hood takes place after the killing joke, it could be that with the joke batman stopped shining the light between the buildings, hes lost hope and its turned to rage, now he would want to kill the joker but still can't, and even then batman is still human, he can think while hes full of rage thinking about the innocent lives joker has taken but then he can reflect and want to make that attempt to help him
12:09 "How could we be positive that killing {Joker} would be justified?" My background is in artificial intelligence and machine learning. In this field, we justify our predictions about what will most like occur based on what has occurred most often in the past given the same or a very similar set of conditions (called features). At the point where someone decides that Joker should die, the only thing we can rely on is that, all things being equal, based on his past actions, Joker is far more likely to kill again rather than die of natural causes. An AI/ML algorithm would predict Joker to kill again before predicting his death by natural causes. Given the highly negative value of Joker's murders, based on who, what, and how, for starters, killing Joker becomes the clear choice.
7:40 so Jim is willing to kill batman but not the joker? Wow
Here's a bit of a radical idea. If Batman really can't kill the Joker and no one else is bothering and Arkham doesn't work. Why doesn't Batman imprison him somewhere in the Batcave? Deep within where he can't do any harm in a prison Batman himself made. Maybe even one underground.
When I saw the title of this video, I just thought “OH MY GOD YES!”
Regardless of whether Batman 's reasoning is "right", it's justified as a choice he would make. It's about character. His personality is obsessive. Otherwise he wouldn't be Batman in the first place. He is obsessed with being Batman, with observing, analyzing and preparing, and with preventing death. He watched his parents die right in front of him. He obsessively hates the very idea of death, and murder in particular. He can't stand the thought of causing, or even failing to prevent, a death. Batman is a genius, but he's also, on some level, a child who never quite grew up, which means he's going to make some choices based on obsession that may or may not seem bizarre to some people. That includes taking in Dick Grayson because he watched Dick's parents die and (in his mind) failed to save them, just as he failed to save his own parents, and in his obsessed mind, he couldn't let that go. The "this could have terrible consequences; I can barely adult, let alone parent" thing didn't factor into it, because Batman's obsessiveness overrides his genius. Sometimes a strength, sometimes a weakness, it is what it is. It's what makes him Batman. Whether "the line" is truly morally justified or not is a debate that could go on for ages and is ultimately pointless, because it doesn't matter whether Batman is right. It matters whether it makes sense for the character. The whole reason he put on that mask is so he can control the chaos and stop death. That's not a rational thing to do. It's an obsessive thing to do. If he kills the Joker, he'll have failed his own obsession and effectively killed Batman.
Of course, this all depends on the writer, but this is the version of Batman that makes sense to me personally, which is why I think his "I don't have to save you" moment in Batman Begins was a mistake.