Batman, Superman, and Philosophy by Nicolas Michaud

Author:Nicolas Michaud
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780812699227
Publisher: Open Court
Published: 2016-07-04T16:00:00+00:00

Batman the Dark Deontologist

Batman’s past-focused, duty-driven mission makes him a deontologist and so a partial follower of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant argues that the only thing that makes an action moral is if it’s done from duty. We have to intend to act in a way that follows from our obligations. Pleasure, safety, peace, justice, other sorts of benefits that might result as a consequence from the action—for Kant, these are all morally irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is intending to act consistently with what Kant calls the “categorical imperative.” In its clearest form, Kant’s categorical imperative maintains that we must intend never to use someone as a mere means to some other end. Our intentions must always respect human beings as ends in themselves. While Kant doesn’t want our actions to make the world less pleasurable or safe, whether or not they do doesn’t matter morally. It’s the intention—and only the intention—that counts.

To understand what Kant is getting at, we need only consider Batman and his trusty batarang. When Batman throws his batarang at the villainous Carl Kruger, it’s deflected by an invisible sheet of glass (p. 67). According to Kant, Batman is no less moral for failing to stop Kruger. You can’t blame Batman. He was just unlucky. In another incident, Batman does have luck on his side. When fighting the Joker, “Batman side steps. The killer-clown stumbles forward into the building driving the knife into his own chest!” (p. 189). Here, according to Kant, Batman is no more moral for succeeding in stopping the Joker. The two scenes result in opposite outcomes, but Batman’s morality is the same. Good luck, bad luck—these might affect consequences, but for the deontologist they don’t affect morality.

That’s because deontologists, from Kant onward, don’t believe in moral “luck.” Invisible glass and fumbling forward can’t make someone or thing moral or immoral. Morality doesn’t depend on chance. Because consequences, however, do, deontologists claim that moral evaluation should itself depend only on factors within our control. And the only thing that we have real control over, on Kant’s and many of their views, are our intentions. So they’re the only things that count in their moral codes.

Nonetheless, what makes our intentions moral, and so gives us a duty to follow them, differs for Batman and Kant. While they’re both deontologists, Kant’s moral code is based on reason. It’s rational, Kant argues, never to intend to treat people as mere tools. By contrast, Batman’s deontology is darker. As established by the vow that he makes in his origin story, Batman’s code is grounded on vengeance. When Batman swears to avenge the deaths of his parents, his intention is retribution. For the rest of his life, Batman abides by that intention—always (dutifully) aiming to fulfill his oath.

As a dark deontologist, Batman is therefore morally bound to war on criminals, “preying upon the criminal parasite, like the winged creature whose name he has adopted” (p. 99). Like any deontologist, morality for Batman doesn’t concern consequences.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.