Life as an Extreme Sport

Batman, The Joker, & the Morality of Killing

So, the internet has been busy, the last few weeks, discussing ethics. And I’m going to continue avoiding discussion of what I’m sure everyone would love me to discuss, and instead wade into the other debate: should Batman just kill The Joker?

Tauriq Moosa, over at Big Think, argues yes, Batman should just kill The Joker. In short, by not killing The Joker, Batman is falling down in his job to protect Gotham; no matter what happens, The Joker escapes confinement and goes on another murderous spree, killing and harming more innocents in Gotham. If Batman is really trying to protect these people and maintain order, then his clear option – after all this time – is to humanely kill The Joker. Moosa points out that, given Batman is basically the greatest detective who ever lived (sorry Michael, the internet gives this to Bats, not Sherlock), it wouldn’t be difficult for him to make The Joker’s death look like an accident, if that were really necessary to maintain his public face of a non-lethal superhero.

Over at Scifi Mafia, Brandon Johnston declares that Moosa is wrong across several fronts:

  • Batman isn’t a superhero so that’s not a motive for his non-lethal stance
  • Batman isn’t image conscious
  • Batman’s non-lethal stance isn’t one based in morality

So, let’s get the “God is an editor” argument out of the way at first: Batman started out killing, and using guns. When he moved to his own comic, the editor at the time, Whitney Ellsworth, decreed no guns and no killing, and that held up for decades due to various pressures facing the comics industry as a whole. But remember, Batman started out as an antihero, Sam Spade-style detective, and that grain runs through his character to today.

Which brings me to Moosa’s throwaway about Batman being a superhero, and Johnston’s response that Batman is not a superhero. Here, Johnston is right: Batman is not a hero, super or otherwise. That’s always been the emphasis of difference between Superman and Batman: Superman is a hero, Batman is an antihero. By virtue of special powers (or being alien life-forms or gods), most heros in the comicverse as a whole are superheroes – they have super-human powers; the lack of (and instead reliance on science and his brain) has always been a key point of Batman.

However, Moosa is also right: because of his staunch and unwavering morality, over the years Batman has become a hero to the superheroes that inhabit the DCverse. But, given the overlapping ideas here, perhaps it would be better to say that Batman is quite often a role model for other heroes (super or otherwise) in the DCverse.

That brings us to image consciousness. Arguing that Batman isn’t image conscious is sort of strange, given that everything Batman did in creating his secret personae of the Batman is about image: what is scary, what will intimidate, what will bring fear into the heart of those who would dare commit crime in his city? Everything about Batman is about image, including his action and relation to the villains running through Gotham.

Let’s just let Batman explain this one for us,

Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot, so my disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts. I must be a creature of the night, black, terrible…

Cue the drama as a bat crashes through the window. Some origin stories, such as Year One, add in a bleeding Bruce Wayne, or a history of being afraid of bats as a child, but one thing remains constant: a conscious effort at creating an intimidating and fearful image. And the question that has to be asked, then, is whether or not an avowed stance of non-lethality helps or harms Batman’s overall image. If it is known that Batman will never main or kill someone, it significantly detracts from the fear he inspires in others – what, after all, is the worst that will happen if you run into Batman? Bruises, some bones, maybe a spin through Arkham. Are these motivators strong enough to stop criminals? Maybe some – but clearly not The Joker.

Finally, Johnston argues that Batman isn’t motivated by morality. Well, how are we defining morality? Or, perhaps more specifically, what motivates Batman to go out nightly and protect Gotham from criminals? Well, I think we all know this: as a child, Bruce Wayne’s parents were mugged and killed in front of him, and this motivated him to a life of revenge against criminals – and justice.

While revenge is not something that we are ever going to strongly associate with morality, justice? A lot of different forms of ethical discourse focus specifically on justice, from the entire body of Rawlsian-influenced theory to natural law theory to principlism and more. Seriously, I’m certain you could fill an entire PhD of nothing but the different aspects justice has taken in ethical discourse since the invention of writing.

It’s a big thing.

So is Batman’s non-lethal stance based on his moral commitment to justice? I would argue yes, but also that this same moral commitment can and does indicate that he should kill The Joker.

First, and before continuing, it’s probably necessary to note that given all the various incarnations of Batman, it’s necessary to clarify which Batman I’m discussing. For the sake of not trying to go multiverse crazy, I’m sticking with the general portrayal of Batman we’ve seen since Frank Miller turned comics on their head with his The Dark Knight Returns and Year One.

The Batman that has emerged since then is clearly dedicated to justice and protecting Gotham. I would argue that, as a whole, this Batman operates under Rawls’ principles of justice, and is clearly utilizing a basic implementation of Rawls’ veil of ignorance to determine his actions. For those of you who did not slog through too much political philosophy, in general this idea says that all of our actions have to be determined from a place of ignorance about our position within society.

By blinding ourselves to our position, not knowing our place, class, social status, fortune (in wealth, assets, abilities, etc), or anything else about ourself, we are in theory supposed to consider all possibilities – that we might be born Bruce Wayne, with a silver spoon and tragic antihero past, we might be a space alien, or a reporter, or just a housewife in Kansas. Because we don’t know who we are, in theory the principles of justice that are chosen behind this veil of ignorance are going to benefit the most – that is, no one is going to decide that one person should have 99% of the wealth if there’s a good chance that they’ll be the 1%. We are much more likely to choose balance if we don’t know how we’ll benefit (this strong principle is reinforced by game theory research).

So in theory, you could say that Batman, not knowing if he would be Batman or The Joker, would make a decision from behind this veil of general non-lethalness, and I think that you can see that for the most part, this is the case. Batman is using his position to make balanced decisions in favour of a universal justice that pretty neatly follows Rawls’ principles of justice.

However. However. We know that post-comics code Batman actually isn’t as married to this non-lethal stance as people like to claim. For example, leading up to the infinite Crisis, “The Tower of Babel” story shows Batman’s so complete mistrust of the superheroes he associates with that he starts keeping files on how to kill each of them. Why would a man dedicated to non-lethal approaches have kill files, not to mention a kill satellite (Brother I)?

Because in Batman’s worldview, justice really is blind, and superheroes can cause as much, if not more, harm than good. When looking at things from that point of ignorance, I think it’s entirely likely that Batman would say that it would be better for the normal and ordinary citizens of the world if superheroes-gone-bad were killed, even if he might be one of those superheroes once his position is revealed. Batman’s stance on justice is so strong that the removal of the threat, that to give everyone the equal right to the most extensive basic liberties, which will benefit most the least advantaged person in society, justifies the death of the outliers threatening others – whether that outlier is a superhero, or a super villain.

Applying what appears to be Batman’s dedication to a very Rawlsian form of justice to the situation with The Joker, it becomes difficult to rationalize Batman’s lack of killing, because although as a whole non-lethal actions do offer the greatest benefit, in the specific scenario of The Joker and his effect on Gotham, it is of greatest advantage to remove him. Permanently.

This feeds into Batman as antihero, it protects Batman’s image as someone to fear, and it works seamlessly with Batman’s moral emphasis on justice at all costs.

In the end, Moosa’s argument is right: Batman should kill The Joker. The question as to why Batman does not is not answered by any of the responses Johnston offers; the best answer is probably given by The Joker himself: the Batman needs a Joker. Someone who gives him purpose.

(And yes, we could have a very interesting discussion about Batman’s choices, especially with regards to The Killing Joke, and how Batman might not necessarily be so dedicated to the principles of Rawls’ theory of justice, because of the “one bad day” hypothesis. But this is really long enough, and I think the point was made well enough for one day.)

NJ Flags at Half-mast for Whitney Houston – The Right Thing to Do

Stepping into the fray because, well, have we met? – there’s a debate flying around social media this morning that Chris Christie, the charmingly offensive NJ governor, has ordered New Jersey flags (state and federal) flown at half-mast Saturday for Whitney Houston’s funeral.

The argument against goes something like this: flags should only be flown at half-mast for first responders, military, and elected officials. (Since, as we all know, elected officials are paragons of virtue and oh wait…) Because Houston had a public battle with addiction, and her cause of death is pending for tox reports, detractors argue she shouldn’t be honoured, and even if her death was “natural” (and for here, please read what people actually mean: of a cause that they deem appropriate and/or acceptable for a black woman), her years of addiction make her unworthy of any kind of honour.

These reasons are wrong, and they smack of both racism and sexism along with judgmental moralism – or perhaps, to be charitable, simple ignorance. In the days of Mariah Carey, Beyonce, Jennifer Hudson and other African American pop musicians (or as VH-1 might say, “divas”), it’s hard for people to remember what the pop musical landscape was like in the early 80s. One word works pretty well, though: white.

And this is acknowledged enough that most comprehensive obituaries are even noting it: Houston, with her pretty, girl-next-door looks and gospel-trained voice, transcended the very limited role expected of black women at the time, and moved out of the R&B/motown/gospel niche and into mainstream music. We don’t really think about it now, but at the time? It was a big deal – and it’s what paved the way for most of the modern “diva music” that exists now.

But Houston did more than just create a positive black female role model in music. She also moved into movies, starring in an interracial romance that ended up being the sort of megablockbuster that guarantees it’s on Lifetime’s heavy rotation. Whether or not The Bodyguard was a good movie is immaterial – good is embedded in other preferences (although I would argue that the sneering dismissal of romance/chick flicks parallels that of genre chick lit/romance novels – a windmill I’ll leave for another day, or the Smart Bitches) – what does mater is that again, Houston transcended the expectations that society placed on a black woman: namely, that she could not carry and open a movie. And while we like to think that America is progressive when it comes to race and romance, the reality is, it’s still incredibly rare, even in 2012, to see an interracial romance in any popular culture portrayal.

We’re in the middle of Black History Month, a month that exists specifically to highlight and emphasize the cultural and historical contributions African Americans have played in American society, in an effort to equalize the disparity shown to important figures in Western culture who have been marginalized due to the colour of their skin. We have a Woman’s History Month in March for the same reason – to balance some of the historical disparities in honouring women, who are frequently marginalized due to their gender.

Right now, people who are disagreeing with honouring Houston are revealing that they’ve either not stopped to think about what she actually did, or are so caught up in stereotypes that their ugly thinking is showing. Accompanying this is that strain of judgmental moralism, the idea that someone has to die in “the right way” in order for it to be permissible to have sorrow for their death. American society in particular has held on to a very peculiar strain of belief that stigmatizes certain deaths as “bad” – that the person who died deserved it and is being punished for their perceived infractions. With Houston, this narrative is developing as “drug users are immoral people and thus deserve their death;” many cancer patients get the implicit suggestion that because they did something viewed as unhealthy or “bad” – say, smoking – they are now being punished – that they must have done something to “deserve” their illness. In a death narrative, there is always judgment, and those judged as lacking for whatever reason receive the accompanying underscore of “death was deserved.”

Ultimately, if it’s good enough for John Wayne, Israel Kamakawiwo`ole, Clarence Clemons, and protector-of-a-child-molester Joe Paterno, it seems like it should be good enough for a woman who broke down doors in music and movies for an entire generation of women after her.

Why Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood are Right

Quickly, because I’m on lunch, and because I should be throwing myself up against the painful wall of HTML and a CMS, my thoughts on the Susan G. Komen reversal and Keith Olbermann’s question on whether or not Planned Parenthood should decline the funds: no.

Here’s the thing: everyone was arguing that Komen needed to rise above politics and the abortion debate, because the grant money they were giving to Planned Parenthood was specifically earmarked for cancer issues: mammograms, early screening, biopsy, education, etc. Planned Parenthood offers these services to many woman (and men!) who would not be reached any other way, because they are in underserved communities or because they simply don’t have access to any other health care.

Now it’s time for the reverse: yes, Komen leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Yes, I will not support them in their pinkwashing or other fundraising – I’d rather give my money directly to Planned Parenthood or other organizations. But I am not Planned Parenthood, and refusing those funds would make them no better than Komen, playing politics with people’s health.

Planned Parenthood is doing the right thing by rising above petty politics in order to serve at-risk and at-need women and men.

Killing Cliches with Caffeine

Over at her blog, Zoë (Please Respect the Umlaut) Marriott has a RetroFriday post about removing cliches from your writing. It’s actually a really good and thoughtful post, for those of us who tend to fall back on cliches to express a concept (and for those of us who tend to write things like “and make a note of this, blondie, this line sucks but you need to move on right now”).

One of the things she says is: Not every shock that the character gets is going to be a your-friend-is-dead-emo-angst type of shock. Ranjit doesn’t need to double over with pain when he finds out there’s no coffee for his breakfast (although I might).

That got me wondering. What would my reaction to no coffee be? I actually had it this morning, when I realized I forgot my good coffee at home, and was going to have to drink the swill they call coffee at work, but that’s not really the same thing as stumbling into the kitchen, desperately in need of that rush of caffeine – the smell of coffee – and not getting it. How would I react?

What a great writing thought experiment, especially as I’m waiting to find out how much of a column I have to modify. So, I did. Why would I be up early enough that coffee was the only thing on my mind, and what would I do if I didn’t have any?

There was an insistent beeping somewhere, in her head but also to the left of her body. As the noise clarified to outside, rather than inside, her head, she reached for her iPhone, which functioned as her alarm most mornings.

Except this morning it was earlier than sin, and the alarm was silent.

Kelly sat up, blinking the sleep away and trying to organize her thoughts into something approaching coherence.

Cats. Right. Cats. That’s what those are at the foot of the bed. Making noise.

“Screw this,” she thought. “If they want me up at this ungodly, I-cannot-bear-to-admit-it’s-an-hour, time, I’m making coffee first.”

Pulling on her robe, Kelly stumbled to the kitchen, hand firmly braced against the wall. Gravity was not a kind mistress when her head was fuzzy, and coffee, caffeine, was all she could think of. “Water, grounds, go. Water, grounds, go,” Kelly mumbled to herself, victim of one too many mornings where one of those necessary three steps didn’t happen.

Stepping over the furry bundles pressed against her legs, trying to keep them out from under her feet, Kelly filled a carafe with water and took it back to the coffee maker, where she reverently poured it into the brewing reservoir. She pulled out the basket, tossed the old grounds, and reached for the bean grinder.

Empty.

Kelly deflated slightly. It wasn’t a big deal, she could grind more, but grinding coffee was a noisy experience, something better done later in the day when the sound didn’t feel like it was echoing in the space below her eyes. When she was conscious and thinking clearly and wasn’t so focused on each step of making coffee.

She reached for the can and it lifted towards her with surprising speed. The sort of surprising speed that comes when you pick up a plastic tumbler, thinking it’s glass. The sort of surprising speed that happens when the coffee can is empty. Kelly screwed her eyes shut, not awake enough to fully wince, and opened the can.

She peaked. A few lone beans rattled at the bottom.

She carefully put the lid back on the can, and the empty can on the stove behind her, pausing for just a moment to consider eating the coffee beans straight. Would that give her the energy to move beyond wanting to cry — a silly reaction to no coffee, but one anyone raised in Seattle would understand — and be willing to go outside?

She glanced at the clock again. There was a reason no sane human was awake at this hour, and this was it: the coffee shops were not open yet.

Ultimately, I decided that if I desperately needed coffee and didn’t have any, I would be way, way too tired to make the effort to double over in pain. You?

written on a lark (or was it a dare?)

I recently discovered that Sarah, over at Smart Bitches, has a lot of the same taste in plots that I do. Two weeks ago, give or take, she was getting feedback via Twitter from folks about author pitches for reviews, and I joked with her that I knew the absolutely perfect summary to get her to pick up and read a book: “I’ve written a romance about a snowbound doctor – and the young man who steals her heart!”

Sarah, bless, immediately replied “Antennae just went all WHAT WHERE BOOK WANT WHAT IS THIS?”

And I thought, “well, why the hell not?” I’d originally planned on writing a chapter just to amuse Sarah, except then I had to go and make the bad executive decision to fall down a flight of stairs, and I opted for spending the weekend going “ow” instead. (Note: I did not actually decide this, so much as “discovered too late that I did not have on the socks I thought I had on.”)

But on the way home tonight, I thought about the hook and decided to write a small bit, just for the hell of it – in part, just to write.

So here ya go, Sarah – this is for you. If I ever actually write the novel, I’ll be sure to dedicate it to Smart Bitches everywhere… and to send you a great pitch asking you for a review.

Theresa wound her way up the road, eyes firmly forward and hands gripping the wheel at the classic “ten and two” position. This was a familiar drive, and its familiarity is what led her to her caution; with the steep canyon walls and burbling river beside the road, and the snow on the ground, conditions were perfect for a deep, thick, enveloping fog. Theresa was looking forward to sitting by the fireplace with a cup of cocoa, watching the fog swirl through the trees and — if she was lucky — the Northern Lights peek down from above.

But the fog that was so picturesque inside a still cabin could be fatal on the two-lane mountain road leading there, and the region was full of logging trucks that took turns too fast and lost control. She had rotated through the regional emergency department last winter and seen the results of the reckless driving firsthand.

Glancing at the clock, she allowed herself a small smile. Her sister had bet her that she’d be on the road less than an hour before she was thinking about medicine, some way or how, and her sister had been right. …not that Theresa would ever tell her that.

The whole point of this retreat up to the family cabin was to get away. To get away from school and work and to relax, in the brief few weeks that signaled the end of her formal education. Soon enough, she would be back down the mountain, walking across the stage, and starting her residency. But after four long years of work, all Theresa wanted to do was curl up in the cabin, watch silly Lifetime movies, cook, drink cocoa, and read for fun.

The very last thing she wanted to do, she planned to do, was to think of medicine.

~*~

The cold, Ryan concluded, was a good thing. The cold meant he couldn’t feel what he was pretty sure was a badly broken leg. The cold meant that he could just lay there, cushioned by the drift of snow he’d apparently landed in, and think about the hell he was going to get when his sister found out he’d gone skiing off-trail. Again. Of course, all the other times, everything had turned out fine, and this was the argument he would use against her when she tried to pull an “I told you so.”

Of course, first he needed to get out of this mess, and shifting slightly confirmed that in the last few minutes of admiring the setting sun and the fog, his leg had not become any less broken.

“Lauren, if you have any bright ideas, I’m all ears,” he said, even though his sister was tucked away in her NYC office with no idea that he was even out here. It was worth a try, wasn’t it?

Nothing.

“Damnit, what’s the use of having a big si-“ Ryan blinked. Were those lights? Was he hallucinating? Gritting his teeth, he pushed himself out of the snowbank he had landed in and squinted. He knew there was a house around here somewhere — was this actually going to be his lucky day?

The beams of the headlights grew brighter as they neared. “Well, I’ll be damned,” Ryan grinned. Perhaps this evening wasn’t going to be so bad after all.