Sooo, Batman and his 'one rule'...
- Thread starter Joel_Kirk
- Start date
To me, Batman's refusal to kill is the key to his character (at least, as his character had evolved circa 2000-2003, when I was following the Batman comics actively). At the end of the day, Batman's entire reason for engaging in his "war on crime" is that he's on a quixotic mission to prevent anyone else from ever seeing someone they love die the way his parents did; he's literally out to end murder in Gotham City. So naturally, for him, he's never going to be able or willing to take a life. He's out to save everyone, because he knows even the worst monster is somebody's son, somebody's daughter, somebody's loved one.
Personal interpretation: I think he would probably kill a suspect if he had no other way to defend innocent lives from immediate danger, but I also think he would probably have done everything in his power to prevent that situation from developing in the first place, and would hate himself afterwards for failing to find another way. And I suspect he would rather die himself than take a life in self-defense. Musings on where these personality traits might lead Bruce's politics follows:
Personal interpretation: I think he would probably kill a suspect if he had no other way to defend innocent lives from immediate danger, but I also think he would probably have done everything in his power to prevent that situation from developing in the first place, and would hate himself afterwards for failing to find another way. And I suspect he would rather die himself than take a life in self-defense. Musings on where these personality traits might lead Bruce's politics follows:
Speaking a bit more broadly, in my personal interpretation, Bruce was raised Catholic, and I imagine that his refusal to kill extends to other arenas -- I think Bruce is probably opposed to the death penalty, but that he's probably also anti-abortion. I doubt that he's actively pro-single payer health care, but I imagine that he thinks the health care system needs reform and would be willing to try a number of systems to see what would work best. (As such, he would probably not be opposed to to something like Obamacare, but may not be actively supporting it, either.) I think he probably tries to avoid dealing with questions of war and peace, as he can only deal with so much--he's out to try to make Gotham a place where no one dies before their time, and to that end he'll take some stances on domestic policy, but tries to let go of the rest of the world when he's able. (Not counting times he has to help save it from Ra's or Brainiac or what-have-you, of course.)
This thread just popped up in my head - rhyming not intended - earlier yesterday when I was thinking about "Injustice: Gods Among Us." Or, it could have been one of those things that randomly pop up in the brain when the mind should be on something else (i.e. work)...lol
Nevertheless, here we have a scenario where former 'heroes' are now villains...and some villains are now 'heroes.' If I remember correctly, Batman is actually on the side of 'good' against Superman's force of evil.
This is also similar to "The Flashpoint Paradox" where we have a more deadly Batman in a more deadlier world (albeit, this is Thomas Wayne and not Bruce Wayne, more of an anti-hero) who is still fighting to bring down villains.
As someone w/o superpowers, Batman seems to be pushed a bit to the limit not only for survival, but as someone who is trying to make a change in a totalitarian or dictatorship timeframe.
Nevertheless, here we have a scenario where former 'heroes' are now villains...and some villains are now 'heroes.' If I remember correctly, Batman is actually on the side of 'good' against Superman's force of evil.
This is also similar to "The Flashpoint Paradox" where we have a more deadly Batman in a more deadlier world (albeit, this is Thomas Wayne and not Bruce Wayne, more of an anti-hero) who is still fighting to bring down villains.
As someone w/o superpowers, Batman seems to be pushed a bit to the limit not only for survival, but as someone who is trying to make a change in a totalitarian or dictatorship timeframe.
84 posts, I can't believe nobody mentioned this yet:
In the comics, Ra'sh Al Ghul killed the Joker. AND BATMAN BROUGHT HIM BACK TO LIFE WITH A LAZARUS PIT. That's how anti-killing he is! Hardcore.
And yet Batman killed the Joker in The Dark Knight Returns.
No, he almost broke the Joker's neck but couldn't quite bring himself to do it. The Joker then finished the job by breaking his own neck, knowing Batman would be blamed for it.
Grant Morrison had an idea relating to Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, but sadly it appears to have been debunked:
http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/08/17/the-killing-joke-script-proves-batman-didnt-kill-the-joker/.
http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/08/17/the-killing-joke-script-proves-batman-didnt-kill-the-joker/.
Dr. Funkenstein
Lieutenant Commander
Please don't refer to the movies (Nolan or otherwise) when discussing Batman's moral code. He's constantly killing villains (and civilians; how many people died due to the countless automotive accidents he's caused alone?) whether directly or indirectly. He's little more than a psychopath, just one focused on taking out other psychopaths rather than innocent civilians.
And yes, letting someone die is the same thing as killing them yourselves. There's even real-world laws that basically state exactly that. It's like trying to say that a lie of omission isn't really a lie at all, even though it most certainly is.
That said, as a few others have mentioned, I like my superheroes to be actual heroes. People with moral codes that we ordinary folk wouldn't be able to live up to no matter how hard we tried.
I like the idea of the 'rule', because it keeps Batman human -- his operative notion is that he doesn't want to become like the people he fights, because then he is no better than Joe Chill (who killed Wayne's parents in cold blood).
Really, everything comes back to Joe Chill.
Really, everything comes back to Joe Chill.
No, it isn't. Everyone omits something every time they speak, because no conceivable utterance can comprise the totality of information. So by "lie of omission" standards every utterance is a lie.
For some of us (and I'd daresay the vast majority of the general public), the movies and TV shows/cartoons are our only point of reference. I don't read the comics.
I recently rewatched the 1989 movie and was surprised that I missed something in previous viewings: Batman sends the Batmobile (via remote control) into the Joker's factory/hideout to drop bombs in there and then speed away. Batman does not make sure the factory is empty and it is implied that his intention was to actually blow up the Joker. That's different than the usual "rule" he follows.
Something else you might consider: Batman has undoubtedly killed a great many people. He beats people in violent ways every single night on his patrols: there's no way that he checks first to see if some thug has a heart condition or, after beating someone, the victim didn't get woozy and then fall down a flight of stairs, breaking his neck. Although this is unrealistic comicland, out of literally thousands of brutal beatings the Batman has served, someone must have died, from a blood clot, a tiny piece of marrow leaking out of broken bone and entering the blood stream, so-called "blood on the brain", etc.
And, as for the original intent of the question in this thread, my own two cents: no, it is not logical for Batman to not kill his enemies. They just break out and kill and kill and kill, thus making Batman totally irrelevant. However, as a realist, if Batman actually did kill people, the writers would have to come up with a fresh villain each and every month, and the villains would, very rapidly, begin to suck. We've certainly seen that before in the pre-comics code era, where "villain of the week" characters were ridiculous, with bowling pins on their heads and so forth. That's the real reason Batman doesn't kill: so the Joker can keep coming back.
Something else you might consider: Batman has undoubtedly killed a great many people. He beats people in violent ways every single night on his patrols: there's no way that he checks first to see if some thug has a heart condition or, after beating someone, the victim didn't get woozy and then fall down a flight of stairs, breaking his neck. Although this is unrealistic comicland, out of literally thousands of brutal beatings the Batman has served, someone must have died, from a blood clot, a tiny piece of marrow leaking out of broken bone and entering the blood stream, so-called "blood on the brain", etc.
And, as for the original intent of the question in this thread, my own two cents: no, it is not logical for Batman to not kill his enemies. They just break out and kill and kill and kill, thus making Batman totally irrelevant. However, as a realist, if Batman actually did kill people, the writers would have to come up with a fresh villain each and every month, and the villains would, very rapidly, begin to suck. We've certainly seen that before in the pre-comics code era, where "villain of the week" characters were ridiculous, with bowling pins on their heads and so forth. That's the real reason Batman doesn't kill: so the Joker can keep coming back.
It's a moral code.
I admire his morality, though I agree it does lead to a never-ending circle where the villains always come back because Batman never finishes them off to begin with.
It is fascinating to compare, for example, with the 1940s Superman story "How Superman Would Win The War", where Supes arrests Adolf Hitler and brings him to trial (as opposed to doing what one might expect a stereotypical 'hero' to do, which is to take him down).
Imagine what a jerk Superman would look like if Hitler were to escape the court-house by hitching a ride on Lex Luthor's private jet.
A lot of these golden/silver age superheroes were unambiguously good people. Batman had a darker vigilante side, born of his genesis from Bruce Wayne's tragedy. But ultimately, he *has* got a strong moral code, an understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Ideally, he doesn't do morally questionable things in the name of justice, and his hope (yes, optimism) is that Gotham's criminal fraternity can be rehabilitated to become good members of society again.
That this never actually happens does make Bats look like a bit of a moron. But hey-ho.
I admire his morality, though I agree it does lead to a never-ending circle where the villains always come back because Batman never finishes them off to begin with.
It is fascinating to compare, for example, with the 1940s Superman story "How Superman Would Win The War", where Supes arrests Adolf Hitler and brings him to trial (as opposed to doing what one might expect a stereotypical 'hero' to do, which is to take him down).
Imagine what a jerk Superman would look like if Hitler were to escape the court-house by hitching a ride on Lex Luthor's private jet.
A lot of these golden/silver age superheroes were unambiguously good people. Batman had a darker vigilante side, born of his genesis from Bruce Wayne's tragedy. But ultimately, he *has* got a strong moral code, an understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Ideally, he doesn't do morally questionable things in the name of justice, and his hope (yes, optimism) is that Gotham's criminal fraternity can be rehabilitated to become good members of society again.
That this never actually happens does make Bats look like a bit of a moron. But hey-ho.
It also makes him a lousy friend. In the comics the Joker has killed one Robin, nearly killed the first, crippled Batgirl and murdered Gordon's wife.
Batman not even considering killing the guy after all that due to his "code" makes it look like his code means more to him than any of his friends and loved ones.
Batman not even considering killing the guy after all that due to his "code" makes it look like his code means more to him than any of his friends and loved ones.
Why? Killing doesn't bring them back to life, does it?
Dr. Funkenstein
Lieutenant Commander
Except that's not what the phrase refers to. It refers to intentionally leaving an important detail out that would influence the person/people you're talking to. It's exactly the same thing as lying; purposeful deceit.
