Life as an Extreme Sport

Batman, The Joker, & the Morality of Killing

February 24, 2012 Kelly Bioethics, Politics, Pop Culture

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.)

The End of the Shuttle Era

July 21, 2011 Kelly ...and everything else, Politics, Tilting at Windmills

I took a nap rather than actually sleep through the night, in order to watch STS-135 (Atlantis) land for the final time. For the entire space shuttle program’s final time.

Atlantis Landing — The last shuttle landing, via NASA TV

The shuttle program is 33 years old. I grew up watching the shuttles, from the Enterprise OV tests to Challenger and Columbia and all the launches and successes between. And now this, the bittersweet end. A program that started because JFK realized the importance of manned exploration of the world beyond ours, fueled by a space race against those evil commie Russians, now ends with American reliance on the Russians to get to the ISS at all.

There might be a modicum of irony in that.

Yes, the shuttle program is expensive – but it’s the kind of expensive I want my tax dollars going to. It’s the kind of expensive that brings back miraculous and amazing technology, research, and discovery. So much of the world around us has come from NASA – yes, more than just Tang. Whether you realize it or not, the space shuttle program has touched your life, immediately and directly.

And now it’s gone.

Sure, there’s talk of privatization, but that’s still several years off at the very least and optimistic. And NASA says that they will shift their focus to manned space exploration, to Mars and beyond. And of course, Voyager and Voyager2 are still out there, still threatening to become V’ger, and there are the Mars rovers and the list of what NASA is doing is still impressively long.

But it’s not the same, and I have my doubts about some of these things ever happening, like a manned voyage to Mars. Right now, our country doesn’t value science, exploration, or discovery. We have managed to lose that adventurous spirit that defined everyone who came to America looking not just for something more and something better, but for the answer to the simple question: what’s beyond that horizon?

Religion and politics have split us asunder in the last twenty years, and a casualty of that war is our national curiousity, our pride in scientific advancement pushed by brilliant American minds, and now, our shuttle – and space – program.

Will Glitter Change the World?

June 19, 2011 Kelly Politics

One of the longer-running arguments my ex-husband and I had was whether or not change comes from someone working within the system, or from outside the system. I always envisioned the illustration of the argument being one of whether or not it’s better to work from inside a fortified city to open the gates via persuasion and education, or if trying to use grappling hooks and rams to force the gates open was the better – more successful – option. I suspect the bias in the envisioning clues you in to which side I (often passionately) argued.

Reading the news this afternoon made me think of that, again, as I read that a GLBTQ activist glitterbombed Michelle Bachmann this weekend. Gingrich and Pawlenty have also been glitterbombed in recent weeks. In all cases, the activists were apparently trying to draw attention to the GOP candidates stance on GLBTQ rights, and in particular the civil right to marriage.

Which leads me to wonder: is there anyone out there who doesn’t know where these people stand on GLBTQ rights?

It’s a rhetorical question, but I’m going to answer it anyways.

Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Gingrich (just to focus on the GOP potentiates who have been glitterbombed) have all been extremely outspoken in their lack of support for GLBTQ rights. They are claiming to be social conservatives who are basing their campaign runs on two major tentpoles of social conservatism: denying GLBTQ couples basic civil rights, including the right to marry, and denying women the right of choice over their own bodies. Their positions are known, in part because they stand on the metaphorical street corner with a bullhorn, shouting as loudly as they can.

So if the activism is not education – and it’s not – then what is it? An attempt for media attention? Trying to humiliate the candidate by covering them in glitter? A misguided attempt to sway other people?

Well, if it’s a strategy to bring media attention to the glitterbombee, it worked. But is this the case that any media coverage is good media coverage? Not really, and that ties in to the other two questions. All media coverage of a candidate being glitterbombed will do is reinforce beliefs on either side of the debate. People who are anti-gay marriage aren’t going to find being covered in glitter humiliating – glitter, believe it or not, has a long and storied life well beyond gay clubs, starting with finger paints and toddlers. These candidates all have kids; they probably all know foolproof ways of rapid deglittering. And covering candidates in glitter is not going to sway voters – it’s going to reinforce positions. Those who are anti-gay will see disrespect, noise, and more proof that “these people are not civilized.” Those who are in favour of civil rights will continue to be in favour of civil rights, and perhaps moderately amused; that’s preaching to the converted, though.

The thing that got me, though, was realizing that these activists – many of them, anyhow – do seem to think that they are making a point and swaying positions. It’s a clash of civilizations beyond what Huntington imagined; The activists seem to see this as an extension of the 80s rallying cry of “we’re here and we’re queer; get used of it.” But Bachmann and her ilk know that gay people exist, and believe it’s a mental disorder that requires curing. They know gay folks are out there, just like they know schizophrenics are out there, and in that particular fundangelical worldview, both are diseases that require treatment and medication to cure. Throwing glitter on someone is not likely to change the impression that being gay is a mental illness that requires treatment.

Counting the Coverage: The Daily Show and Dicks*

June 8, 2011 Kelly ...and everything else, American Idol, Politics, Pop Culture, The Daily Show, Tilting at Windmills

For the past week plus, there have been rumblings in the blogosphere that Jon Stewart has not done enough to mock, slam, satirize, or otherwise shame New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, and the charge is two-fold: Stewart won’t because Weiner is a Democrat, and Stewart won’t because they were, for a time, college roommates, and have remained friends.

The charge that Stewart isn’t as hard on Democrats largely and unsurprisingly comes from conservative commentators (feel free to read “FOX News and fans” here); Stewart and The Daily Show shot to prominence in a post-9/11 world, and a lot of viewers (and/or detractors) didn’t have the experience of Clinton years for context. And it can be a bit hard to compare administrations against one another – it’s rare that political situations are ever similar enough that an apples to apples comparison can be done. (And this would be one of the reasons you literally get apple to apple comparisons on The Daily Show – it’s easier to show Rand Paul being a hypocrite and why than it is to try to show contrasting clips across different administrations.)

But for good or bad (and/or “reasons I moved out of New York state”), the Weiner “scandal” is something that has an almost direct one-to-one correlation: NY Rep. Chris Lee, Republican, who resigned in February after emails and a shirtless photo were sent to a woman in response to a Craigslist dating advertisement.

Now, clearly these situations are not precisely parallel. While Lee and Weiner are both married men, Weiner (so far) has not been caught trying to lie about his identity or do more than send photos that were in bad (or at least juvenile) taste**. Lee, on the other hand, a self-described “classy guy”, lied about being a divorced lobbyist (and his age and other such things). He was looking for more, and the young lady involved wasn’t interested in liars. A quick Google search confirmed her suspicions; one eMail to Gawker later and Cuomo was holding a special election in Western New York.

So, not identical, but really damn close. Clearly the best thing to do, then, is to directly compare the coverage of these two events on The Daily Show. Now, Lee resigned Wednesday the 9th of February, which I believe was a dark week for The Daily Show. There is, of course, a problem here with a news cycle moving quickly, but surely something of such magnitude would be mentioned, right? After all, it’s a Republican resigning over a sex scandal, and given how “easy” Stewart has been on Weiner this past week and change, it’s inevitable that the Chris Lee resignation would be stretched out over several days.

Or, well. One.

Segment.

On February 15th. That was interrupted by John Oliver’s need to discuss the Harry Baals government center in Indiana. You can view it here.

Note the similarities: jokes about the fitness of the representative, R.Kelly-esque R&B music with Stewart grooving in his chair. There’s even John Oliver involvement. But it was an entire “scandal” covered in approximately 2.5 minutes, highlighting the fact that Lee got lucky – he resigned the same day the Egyptian Revolution started. Lucky guy – the media was largely distracted.

Do I really need to compare the time dedicated to Weiner versus Lee, at this point? No, but I will anyhow.

The “event” begins on the night of May 27th, a Friday. While The Daily Show doesn’t film on Friday, rather coincidentally, they were dark that final week of May, as well. This means a lot of material to come back to on Monday – eerily similar to the Chris Lee scandal. The Daily Show even begins coverage on May 31st, a Tuesday. And this is how it breaks down:
May 3st, Tuesday: 6 minutes, 51 seconds
June 1st, Wednesday: 2 minutes, 59 seconds
June 2nd, Thursday: 4 minutes, 10 seconds, as well as an additional 2 minutes, 57 seconds and 2 minutes, 22 seconds.
June 6th, Monday: 4 minutes, 4 seconds
And for the most recent episode, Tuesday the 7th of June, we have:
5 minutes, 55 seconds
2 minutes, 49 seconds
4 minutes, 46 seconds

And that is not including several Moments of Zen.

Now, math has never been my strong suit, and even less so at nearly 6am. Nonetheless, it would seem that math is rather firmly on the side of “Weiner’s received far more coverage than Lee”, even though Weiner is actually a friend.

Any way you try to slice it, Stewart has given more time and attention and mocking disbelief to his friend than he did a Republican representative in nearly the same situation. 34 more minutes of time, just to be exceedingly precise.

*Metaphorical or otherwise.

**Have you met the internet? Let me introduce you to it, where everyone under the age of 35 has done at least one stupid thing involving it, and many, many people have done many stupid things involving body parts typically best only seen through the haze of beer and dim light.

Attempting Goals – Weekly Schedule

May 28, 2011 Kelly ...and everything else, Politics, Pop Culture

The problem (okay, a problem – there are more than one) with parasthesia is it doesn’t give you much warning. One minute, your hands are working fie, and the next minute you’re marveling at your ability to both save the mug and spill iced coffee in your freezer, down front and back of the fridge door, all over the floor, and of course, all over yourself.

It’s hot, so at least the shower – although sooner than anticipated – was not unexpected.

Anyhow, there was a point there, and I think it went something like this: sometimes, you’re in the middle of living life and something happens to change everything. You either sigh, clean up the mess as best you can, and then go back to living best you can, or you sit in the middle of the kitchen floor and cry over spilled coffee and milk. Both are valid choices, but either way, you have to clean up the spilled coffee and milk.

Which is related, in ways that make sense to me, and might to you if you’ve seen things for a while, to the fact that a writer (and producer – would not want to shirk credits) I quite like and admire, Paula Yoo, happens to be on Twitter; she also blogs. Now, first of all, read her blog – she’s funny, she has adorable cats, and you will learn a lot. But, secondly and more relevant for this post, she just set up a new blog schedule, and I am shamelessly stealing it, with a few modifications. So this will be my schedule, with inspiration from Ms. Yoo:

Music Monday
As I’m making an effort to get back into writing, I’m finding myself listening to music again. Music is really interesting on several fronts, but I’m particularly interested in how we physiologically react to music, from having an influence on energy levels and heart rate to chemical changes within our brain.

Most of the time it’ll probably just be something like “so when I’m polishing an essay, did you know I listen to the Buffy Once More With Feeling soundtrack on repeat?”

Tuna Tuesday!
I have two adorable cats, and if they had their way, I would spend every waking moment worshiping them. While they slept, I would spend all my time explaining to you, via pictures and Venn diagrams, how they are The Best Kitties Ever. As a favour to everyone, I shall try to keep cute cat stories limited to Tuesdays. (Yes, Paula’s doing hers on Thursdays. To my ear, “Tuna Tuesday” is a more pleasant alliterative.)

Writing Wednesday
I’ve gotten extremely off-track with my writing in the past two years – once upon a time I blogged at four different blogs several times a day (you know, in the good old days of being paid to do that kind of thing). A lot of things happened that encouraged me to silence my voice, and I’m trying to find it again. Thoughts on the process on Wednesday. (Or you know, less serious crap and more fun stuff that I’m learning from obsessively studying writers under the Twitter microscope, reading, discussing in the writer’s group I’m a part of, or just general accountability towards my own goals.)

Pop Culture Thursday
Unlike Ms. Yoo, I am not a TV professional. I am, however, a pretty big pop culture geek – and it’s about time I got back into writing like it. My pop culture writing is what got me first noticed in the blogging world lo those many years ago, when I was actually recapping Grey’s Anatomy for the now-defunct Metroblogging Seattle. My irritation at House, MD became a bit legendary.

Foodie Friday
As long-time readers know (if any of you are left), I am a foodie from a family of foodies. I love to eat, I love to cook, I love to read about cooking and recipes and the whole nine yards; I even studied food ethics for a while. I think I follow more writers than chefs on Twitter – but not by much. Friday’s will be for recipes, restaurants, and …I cannot think of another alliterative. I’ll blame the time on that one.

Anyhow, it’s a bit of an ambitious goal to go from essentially not writing for two-plus years to writing daily and blogging at least five days a week – but hey, it’s a goal, and it even feels relatively sane and achievable, so far as goals go. And of course, the best thing is, I can write more if I so desire – it’s just that this makes sure that “less” doesn’t go below a certain number. So, starting Monday the 30th of May, we shall see.

Category: Politics

Batman, The Joker, & the Morality of Killing

The End of the Shuttle Era

Will Glitter Change the World?

Counting the Coverage: The Daily Show and Dicks*

Attempting Goals – Weekly Schedule

Random Quote

Seek And Find. Maybe.

Categories

Bioethics

Just A(nother) Geek

Medicine, Science & Misc

Writerthings

In the Past

Meta