Batman should kill the Joker. How many of us would consent with that? Quite a few would agree with that. Even Heath Ledger’s Joker in “The Dark Knight” wonder at Batman’s declination to kill him. After all, the Joker is a savage psychopath, and Batman could save countless innocent by terminating his wretched being once and for all. Of course, there are an abundance of masked loonies willing to take the Joker’s position, but none of them has ever shown the same contorted devotion to disorder and tragedy as the Clown Prince of Crime. But if we say that Batman should kill the Joker, doesn’t that mean that we should torture terrorism suspects if there’s a chance to gain intelligence that could save innocent lives? Terrorism is all too ready in the real world, and Batman only lives in the comics and movies.
So perhaps we’re just too separate from the Dark Knight and the problems of Gotham City so we can say “go forward, kill him.” But, if anything, that separation means that there’s more at stake in the true world so why aren’t we tougher on real terrorists than we are on the make-believe Joker? Pop culture, such as the Batman comics and movies, provides convenience to think rationally about issues and topics that parallel the real world. For example, reasoning about why Batman has never killed the Joker may help us think on our issues with terrorism and torture, specifically their ethics. Continue reading the main story, three major schools of ethics provide some perspective on Batman’s predicament. Utilitarianism, based on the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, would most likely endorse killing the Joker, based on comparison the many lives saved against the one life lost.
2. 150 words
I think Batman should kill the Joker and I also think the controller should switch the trolley to another track, but these two questions are not really the same. The Joker is guilty and he is always trying to kill others, and the one on the other track for the trolley is possible innocent. Utilitarian theory says it is fine to kill one to save more lives because the results justify the means so killing in Batman and trolley cases is justified.
Kantian theory is different from Utilitarian one because it focuses on the deedâ€™s nature and initial. If the act is wrong then one shouldnâ€™t do it. So, Batman shouldnâ€™t kill the Joker even knowing the joker will kill more people, and killing the Joker just makes Batman the same criminal as the Joker. The same thought on the trolley case, killing one man on the other track wrong even knows the old track has 5 people on the way and they will be killed. But, there is a moral equivalency problem. How do we know the 5 people on the old track and the one on the new track are morally equivalent? The 5 people maybe on the track because they are robing a girl, and the one on the new track is protecting a child from crossing the road. The joker is evil for sure compared to the people in the trolley case. What if the Joker says he will not kill again(Irwin & Johnson, 2010)?
Reflecting on your own life, describe a real-life scenario where you had to make an ethical decision, choosing between deontological and teleological options. Do you see any connections between Batmanâ€™s decisions and your own scenario? What could you learn from Batmanâ€™s actions in your life?
I went for a walk with my dog in the neighborhood few years ago. My dog ran away unleashed because I was just chatting with my neighbor. I picked up the leash and pulled the dog before he reached a little girl on the street, and the act made my dog hurt and slide down. My neighbor looked at me and showed the anger of hurting my dog, but I thought I did the right thing. She was acting the Deontology style meaning I couldnâ€™t hurt any animal even knowing it would hurt people. Now, I know the reason Batman didnâ€™t kill the Joker because he was a Deontologist. The act was wrong when it was wrong, and there was no way one could justify it by the result of doing it.