Alex Tang
Articles
- General
- Theology
- Paul
- Karl Barth
- Spiritual Formation
- Christian Education
- Spiritual Direction
- Spirituality
- Worship
- Church
- Parenting
- Medical
- Bioethics
- Books Reviews
- Videos
- Audios
- PhD dissertation
Spiritual writing
- e-Reflections
- Devotions
- The Abba Ah Beng Chronicles
- Bible Lands
- Conversations with my granddaughter
- Conversations with my grandson
- Poems
- Prayers
Nurturing/ Teaching Courses
- Sermons
- Beginning Christian Life Studies
- The Apostles' Creed
- Child Health and Nutrition
- Biomedical Ethics
- Spiritual Direction
- Spiritual Formation
- Spiritual formation communities
- Retreats
Engaging Culture
- Bioethics
- Glocalisation
- Books and Reading
- A Writing Life
- Star Trek
- Science Fiction
- Comics
- Movies
- Gaming
- Photography
- The End is Near
My Notebook
My blogs
- Spiritual Formation on the Run
- Random Musings from a Doctor's Chair
- Random Sermons from a Doctor's Chair
- Random Writings from a Doctor's Chair
- Random Spirituality from a Doctor's Chair
Books Recommendation
---------------------
Medical Students /Paediatric notes
A Philosophy of Action
or Why the Batman will not kill the Joker
Dr Alex Tang
In a crisis we are sometimes surprised that we act in a way contrary to the way we think we should act. This is because in our conscious and subconscious minds, we have a philosophy of action which forms the basis of our decision making and daily living. This philosophy may be articulated or identified clearly but for most of us, we are not aware of it. Such a philosophy of action is often acquired by enculturation. The Batman or commonly know simply as Batman is a fictional comic character created by artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger. For some unknown reason, Bob Kane is the only one receiving official credits. The Batman first appeared in Detective Comics #27 in May 1939. The Batman is the alter ego of millionaire Bruce Wayne. While as a child, he witnessed the brutal murder of his parents. As he grew up, he devoted his life to training himself intellectually and physically to fight crime. In order to protect his identity he dons a bat-like costume and soon became known as the Batman. Unlike other costumed superheroes in the comics, he does not have any superpowers. Like James Bond, another fictional character, he depends on his wits, martial skills and cool sophisticated, technological advanced gadgets in his crusade for justice. But unlike James Bond, the Batman has a rule: “He does not kill.” That is why he does not carry a gun.
Over the years, Batman fought and overcame many villains. The name on top of his list of villains will be the Joker, a psychopathic homicidal madman who created death and mayhem whenever he appeared. He repeatedly escaped from Arkam Asylum. Aside from the death of many innocent victims of his crime, the Joker is also responsible for the brutal murder of Jason Todd (the second Robin), the crippling of Batgirl, and the death of Commissioner Gordon’s second wife, Sarah. In spite of all the personal tragedies in his life, the Batman still refuses to kill the Joker, even when he has the opportunities. It will be interesting to understand the philosophy of action of this fictional character.
Philosophy of Action
Our actions are often based, not on what we proclaim but on what we maintain. All of us have an underlying philosophy of action which dictates how we make decisions in a given situation. Often such a philosophy is not stated and lies in our unconscious. Philosophy of action may be broadly categorized into three categories:
(1) Utilitarianism/Consequentialism (for the greatest good)
(2) Deontologism (principles are universal – sense of duty)
(3) Moral Virtue Ethics Theory (I am what I do)
A simplified explanation of these may be illustrated by philosopher Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson in the form of a moral dilemma:
Imagine that a trolley is going down a track. Further down the track are five people who do not hear the trolley and will not be able to get out of the way. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough time to stop the trolley before it hits and kills them. The only way to avoid killing these five people is to switch the trolley to another track. But, unfortunately, there is one person standing on that track, also too close for the trolley to stop before killing him. Now imagine an innocent bystander standing by the track switch who must make a choice; do nothing, which leads to the death of five people on the current track, or act to divert the trolley to the other track, which leads to the death of the single person.A utilitarianist, also sometimes know as consequentialist’s response is to sacrifice the one person to save the five. To them, the action that leads to the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the correct action. In utilitarianism, the end justifies the means. John Stuart Mills is a foremost proponent of this philosophy. Another popular proponent of utilitarianism is Peter Singer, professor of Philosophy in Princeton University and in the University of Melbourne. A deontologist may elect not to do anything. The principle ‘do not kill’ is universal which means that the rule of not killing cannot be broken. By an action to choose to save one or five will violate the duty not to kill. This will not be acceptable in the framework of this philosophy. Here the principle of the action is more important than the consequences. Immanuel Kant is very influential in the development of this philosophy. A virtue ethicist may elect to sacrifice himself or herself by throwing his/her body into the path of the moving trolley in order to save it. Foremost in this philosophy is the building of character. Our action flows out of our character. This philosophy has ancient roots dating from Aristotle. Aristotle postulated that the ethical behaviour of a person is not from his choice (utilitarianism), or his actions/duty (deontologism). It arises from who this person is. He calls these virtues or what we nowadays call character; compassion, justice, courage, and tolerance. One of the prominent philosophers today is Alistair MacIntyre. Philosopher Thomson now suggest another scenario
There is a surgeon with five patients. Each of his patients is dying from failure of a different organ and could be saved by a transplant. Since there are no organs available by normal channels, the surgeon considers drugging one of his (healthy) colleagues and removing his organs to use for transplants.By killing one, many will be saved. This is utilitarianism. This is similar to the trolley story. The death of one will save the five. It is not the action (murder) but the consequences (five healthy persons) that is the key in this philosophy.
What is the Batman’s Philosophy of Action?
Over the decades from their initial encounter in Gotham City, the Joker has transformed from the Clown Prince of Crime to a mass murderer. He killed the second Robin, Jason Todd, paralysed Barbara Gordon (Batgirl), and shot and killed Lt. Sarah Essen, Commissioner Gordon's second wife. As many times, the Batman captured the Joker, as many times the Joker escaped. Being insane, Batman knew the Joker will never be persecuted. Knowing as he did that the Joker will continue to escape and hurt and kill people, why did the Batman not kill the Joker? Batman has said many times that he refused to kill because in killing, he is no better than the criminals that he is sworn to fight. One would expect that he will make an exception with the Joker. I am sure he is aware of the hundreds of innocent lives that were lost and every more injured or crippled because he let the Joker live. This will be in line with utilitarianism thinking. This thought system will encourage the Batman to kill the Joker because this will prevent all the murders he will commit in the future. While it is bad to kill, yet killing one life will be the saviour of many other lives. In the Hush storyline, Hush asked the Batman, "How many lives do you think you've cost, how many families have you ruined, by allowing the Joker to live?...And why? Because of your duty? Your sense of justice?"
The Batman has ample opportunity to kill the Joker. He is holding the Joker's hands at the top of an unfinished office in the movie The Dark Knight. All he has to do is to let go and let the Joker fall to his death. Imagine the trolley scenario except the current track is onto the one person and switching the track will kill the five. The Joker still lives so obviously the Batman is not a utilitarianist. While it may appear that Batman is a deontologist; that the act of killing is against his sense of duty to be not like the criminals he fights, however, his other actions do not support this conjecture. Batman as a masked vigilante often dangerously skirts the edge of the law and has been known to break the law when it suits his purpose. His Kantian ethics will not allow him to do this if he is a deontologist. Deontology is based on a sense of duty and its most well known proponent is Immanuel Kant. Of course, Immanuel Kant has never met the Joker. "Is Batty a secret deontologist?" muses the Joker. "I want my lawyer! Oh, that's right, I killed him too" (from The Dark Knight)
Our investigation into the existential question whether should Batman kill the Joker has evolved to why the Batman did not kill the Joker. We have established that Batman does not subscribe to utilitarianism and Kantianism (odeontologism). That left us to consider virtue moral theory. While utilitarianism focus on the consequences of the action, odeontologism on the duty of actor, virtue theory is about whom the actor is, i.e. the character or virtues of the actor. Batman/Bruce Wayne has very strong influential persons in his life. His father, Dr Thomas Wayne was a compassionate surgeon, industrialist and philanthropist. He believed in the goodness of people. Note that he organised the rich elite to help the poor during the depression in Gotham City and built the monorail system for the people. His death was partially due to the fact that he brought his family to the opera by monorail instead of by private car (see Batman Begins).
The butler Alfred was another influence and served as a surrogate father figure after the death of Thomas Wayne. Alfred exhibits strong elements of loyalty and integrity, looking after the family estates when Bruce was wandering around in search of himself. Though he disapproves of Bruce's nocturnal activities, he restricts himself to sarcastic remarks while availing himself to rescue the Batman and offer medical treatment when necessary. It takes a strong character not to impose his will on others and to remind in the shadow of another.
Dr. Thompson is another person who helped Bruce after the death of his parents. She provided the nurturing mother figure to balance Alfred's Yang with her Yin. A competent doctor, she chooses to devote her life to helping the poor and the helpless in slum alley. Thomas Wayne, Alfred and Thompson did not act out of a sense of duty but because of who they are. It is their characters that dictate their actions, not the other way around. Bruce Wayne must have pick up this moral characteristics from them. In the storyline, Bruce Wayne: Fugitive, Bruce Wayne has an identity crisis. Is he the Batman and Bruce the man behind the mask; or Bruce Wayne and the Batman is the person behind the persona? As expected, the crisis was resolved when Bruce realised that the Batman was a means to an end (limiting the activities of the criminal elements by putting a fear in the criminal mind). This question resurfaced numerous times, for example in the story arch of No Man's Land and Knightfall (and Knightend).
Conclusion
Batman did not kill the Joker because it is not in his nature or character to kill. Like Gandhi who resort to non-violence to resist an unjust government, the Batman resort to non-lethal violence to resist a corrupt justice system and the criminal minds. It is in their strength of character that we must respect them. In the Batman mythos, built by many writers contributing to the character over the years, it is interesting to note that the fictional Batman has developed a philosophy of action. His “I do not kill” philosophy of action guides his actions and reactions. It will be good for us to examine ourselves to see if our philosophy of action is congruent with our stated philosophy of life. It may surprise many of us to discover that our philosophy of action is not consistent with our philosophy of life. This may explain why many of us do not “walk our talk.”
|posted 15 April 2009|
