BATMAN AND PHILOSPOHY: 1250 Words
All of us know the caped crusader
that Christian Bale has made so cinematic the past few years. Long movies that you watch three or four
times, plot lines with twists and turns around every corner, developing
characters, action packed scenes, and…..philosophy? Believe it or not, yes! Batman is a philosophical
character. Whether talking about his
actions, his origins, the villains, the plot line, or even the social context
the story takes place in – batman is literally riddled with philosophy.
Let’s
start with the most logical place to begin: origins. Batman was built off one promise: To make
Gotham a safer place. This stems from
the death of his father and mother, but mainly, Batman is unique in the sense
that he became a hero due to sheer determination of will. Superman was unworldly, Spiderman was accidently
bitten, and others use genetic modification…but not Batman. Batman had a promise as a young boy, and he
built his life around that promise.
Training to embrace his fears, strengthening his body and mind, and
developing technologies to improve his abilities all lead to him becoming a
superhero. Some argue he never was a
superhero due to his lack of superhuman qualities; he has not gene
modifications or special powers. Only
strength and will do to change his world.
In this sense, he is just a hero.
An idol for others to follow, which is in part what Bruce Wayne wanted,
a nonmasked figure.
At face
value revenge or retribution is his motivator, but that is an all too obvious
answer. Batman is motivated by an internal
will and desire: his ultimate motif if will you. This reflects the philosophical teachings
that we are a slave of our free will, or in other words, we follow the will
that we do not control. His ultimate goal
is to resecure the city, which can be interpreted as control. Not control of city by himself, but of the
people. Some philosopher’s even take it
as far as saying Batman ‘s desire to return control of the city to citizens
stems from his internal desire to give up the Batman character because it would
free him of his internal will and return him to true free will.
But let’s
break it down some more, should he have done this? Why give in to what he feels, why become the
Batman? Here is your answer: utilitarianism. Does Peter Singer come to mind?
Because he should. Batman is quite
literally an epitome of utilitarianism.
He brings about the greatest amount of good for people or more
appropriately, the least amount of evil for the greatest amount of people. At the end of the Dark Knight, Batman becomes
the villain. He very easily could have
revealed Harvey Dent’s intentions, been a hero, and kept on going about his
Batmanning, but that would not have produced the least amount of evil. He needed to maintain the hope in people even
at his own cost. But wait, there is another issue we have not addressed. Batman must keep up his façade of a billionaire
playboy spending money and living fast in order to protect his identity. Forbes has Bruce Wayne listed at number 7 in
fictional character wealth coming in at 7 Billion dollars. Bruce Wayne is not selfish obviously, but he
cannot be a philanthropist in order to save his image.
Peter
Singer would argue that Batman could have a more impactful difference by not
dressing up in a cape and giving away his 7 Billion to starving and
homeless. Since Singer’s utilitarian argument
gives no more “points” for home field advantage, Batman cannot say that he owes
a debt to Gotham. One starving child in
Africa is the same as one in America, thus Bruce has a moral obligation to
serve the millions of starving over the thousands of scared. So while on the surface, it appears Batman
follows Singer’s philosophy, they actually diverge when you break it down.
There
is one other thing that kind of haunts Batman, and runs the whole utilitarian
thing down the drain: Batman looks to the past for inspiration (his
parents). A true utilitarian examines
and takes into account the future.
Batman does take this into account in situations. For example, in the comic series Batman
leaves Robin in order to foul a plot by the Joker to kill hundreds. Batman knows the Joker will kill Robin if he
leaves, but he does so anyways to save the greater number. So in essence, utilitarian’s would disagree
with the origins of Batman, but can’t argue much regarding his actions (other
than that he should give away all his money).
This is
not to say Batman is morally corrupt. If
you have a more moderate definition of giving, take into account he is honoring
his parents, and that he is still saving lives and could be savings lives that
have yet to be affected then it is obvious that he is morally justified. I doubt Singer would actually judge Batman and
say he is wrong, but more say, “That’s not how I would do it”.
As you
can see, we have spent over 800 words just on his origins relating to Peter
Singer. Batman and philosophy go hand in
hand, so let’s talk a bit about one last point I find relevant to the
conversation. Is it worth it for
Batman? Sure he’s saving the Gotham,
fighting crime, helping people, and being a role model (debatable, but that’s
an entirely different topic), but does his life have value?
The
concept of selfishness is frowned upon, but ultimately, aren’t we responsible
for ourselves including our happiness? Batman has so much hate built up that he
has let hate drive his life and his decisions…is that a way to live? To be so
consumed by hate that you have to spend countless hours training you body and
mind, millions of dollars developing technology, and sacrifice your personal
life only to satisfy your need to act on hate.
Batman on the outside appears to have an awesome life of partying, but
that’s only an appearance, and only happens just enough to keep his identity
up, but out of the public eye.
Can you
imagine 6 or 7 nights a week for 12 plus hours running, jumping, climbing,
fighting, gliding, falling, getting hit, stabbed, pushed, and shot at? Only to come home to an empty house injured,
two dead parents, and no girl because either the joker blew her up or you can’t
have one due to her being a target (movies vs. comics). Then, just as you think you can give your
Batman thing up and let Harvey Dent take over, he goes crazy, kills some cops,
and now YOU are the bad guy….sounds like a crappy deal to me. When does his self actualized happiness come
into account? Some say it is heroic to sacrifice himself in that nature, but to
what point do you draw the line? His
fighting of evil on satisfies his hate not his happiness, thus it could be interpreted
that Batman truly cannot be happy unless he loses the cape (which he hinted at
in The Dark Knight with Rachel). Once
Rachel died, it was pretty much downhill from there. His hatred drive him so much so that I believe
Batman can only actualize his hate and suppresses all other feelings after
Rachel dies.
Was really hoping my original misreading of your title was correct: "Batman as Unitarian"... was ready to learn all about the "interdependent web of all existence" etc. etc.
ReplyDelete