Batman and Philosophy 2: Is It Right to Make a Robin?

[Razor]

One thing is universal throughout the Batman universe, and that is the war between Batman and the criminally insane ranks of Joker, Two Face, Penguin, Scarface, and the like. The ranks that align behind Batman are constantly changing and fluxing, and the ranks of the criminally insane Batman wages a war against react in kind.

I don't think anyone would argue that Batman should go the fight alone, especially when there seems to be a line of people who want to follow in his footsteps. However, should Batman actively recruit, as seen with the recruitment of the various Robins? Batman has made his choice of life, that of the Caped Crusader. And for that, the people of Gotham thank him...at least, they do most of the time. Should Batman go around training young children to fight against murderous criminals?

If we consider Kant, Batman is a horrible deontologist. One of Kant's main arguments is if a maxim can not be extrapolated out to become a universal law of action, then the maxim can not be ethical; seeing as though ethics should be able to be lived by everyone. The maxim "Don't cause harm to children" would be considered a good ethical rule by Kant, because it can be easily universalized. However, what would Batman's maxim be for recruiting Robin? "If a kid is stealing your tires (Jason Todd) or has his parents killed during a circus act (Dick Grayson), I should train them to become heroes." That is a lousy universal rule, admit it. Is there any sort of law Batman could have been living by to account for these actions?

If we consider the likes of John Stuart Mill, Batman is at the very least a decent consequentialist. Utilitarians argue, very basically, that an action's ethics lie in the end result. Batman could be reasoning that the utilization of these children as Robin would result in his being able to more adequately fight crime..which helps everyone. Putting Robin in constant danger could be seen as a valid trade off.

Now, if we consider another form of thought, Batman is a damn good Virtuist. Virtuists emphasize individual character traits, rather than judging individual actions. Virtue ethics also take into account differing roles the people play, different characters of the people, and the different cultures present. Batman fights for the morals he deems correct, but he also acknowledges that not everyone can take up the same fight he does.

It would go to stand that Batman could justify his course of action by the fact that he instills a set of virtues within Robin, the kind which allow his role as a superhero while at the same time being virtues that most would consider good. While most would argue about the ethics of taking children and making them superheroes, none would argue that instilling virtue into those children is bad. It just so happens that Batman also teaches them how to fight really, really fucking well. Batman understands that different people have different roles in life, and Batman identifies the potential Robins as such. It's a way of worming out of Kantian ethics and not getting caught by the mirky area of Utilitarian ethics.

That begs the question, is Batman simply faulty in his logic? Can he teach virtue? Your mother would tend to think so, considering our parents are usually where we pick up most of our ethical stances. However, one would consider Jason Todd, whom despite extensive training still let his criminal irrationalities take over and rush into battle... and to his brutal death at the hands of the Joker.

This failure would seem a fatal flaw in Batman's reasoning...but while utilitarians and deontologists seem to claim that as long as you follow the rules the best situation will unfold, Virtue ethics readily admits this is not the case. Despite your hardest and most earnest attempts, you very well might not get the best outcome. Batman isn't at fault for Todd's fate.

So, there you have it. Is Batman right in making a Robin, despite the obvious dangers apparent? Is Batman's stance as a virtue ethicist reasonable? Stake your claim.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Batman and Robin are the perfect example of the subjectivity of the ranking of morals when in conflict in a given situation. It is difficult to universalize morals. If you do so, then all you are left with are the natural rights. Nothing exists in black and white outside of a state of nature.

Let's examine the rights that we can universalize. In a state of nature, one ought not murder, ought not steal, ought not harm children, ought not force his will. It is when these maxims become universal that man can enter into a social contract. Kant to Locke. The problem is, once man has entered into a society, the complex relationships and new situations present moral conflicts. If a child is raping my wife, do I "not murder," do I "force my will" to stop someone from forcing their own? Remember, Kant would argue that these natural moral obligations are universal, however, in a society, everything is relative, and relativity of relationships raises the issue of the subjectivity of morals. In a natural state, there is no family, there is no marriage, but new social roles present a gray area in which morals come on conflict. Robin, namely the Dick Grayson character, is an example of someone leaving the natural state and entering into a social contract.

After Grayson's parent's die, he is alone and seeks out some sort of support mechanism. Enter Batman. Grayson has to be socialized, which causes Batman to impose his rules, or, force his will. The presentation of rules violates mans natural freedom, which is a violation of Kantian principle. Here, we need to look into the concept of moral relativity. Spinoza would argue that nothing is good or bad, unless we look to the consequences. Grayson subjecting his own will, is used as a means to an end, a clear violation of Kant's third tenet of the categorical imperative. However, he uses Batman as a means as well. When we look to moral relativism, we realize that both men's subjugation of natural freedoms serves a high purpose without providing for an equal or greater harm. This, according to Hume, is a moral action. Robin makes Batman's life easier and Batman gives Robin structure, which is what he needs. Therefore, both men benefit equally, therefore, even in violation of Kant's theories, the action is moral.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Is it right for Batman to recruit lads to be Robin?

Well first of all, i guess it depends on your interpretation of the word 'recruit'.

My interpretation is presenting an opportunity to someone to join or take part in something, and convincing them to seize that opportuniy i.e. good ol' Uncle Sam's 'We Want You!' posters.

So, taking that into account, Batman has only ever 'recruited' one Robin, and that was Jason Todd. Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, Stephanie Brown and Damian Wayne all made the conscious decision to become Robin without Batman even suggesting it to them.

I'll go into each of them in more detail if you really want, but be warned i can talk Batman until the point of exasperation so....

Anyway, Jason is the only one who Batman asks to join him, the others just suddenly appear in the Robin costume because of different circumstances each time.

Alfred suggested to Grayson he should join Batman.
Drake figured out that Batman was Bruce Wayne and then pleaded with Bats to let him be Robin.
Stephanie Brown was already the teen vigilante 'Spoiler' who took on the Robin mantle when Drake quit because she felt it was her fault.
Damian Wayne is Bruce Wayne's son, has been trained by Talia Al Guhl and the League of Assassins since he could walk, and was made the new Robin, by Grayson who is the new Batman, in order to keep an eye on him, considering that the first time Damian went out on his own to fight crime, he decapitated the criminal immediately.

I'd probably have to agree with the Virtuist aspect of the argument personally, in all 5 examples. Even with Jason Todd, because it wasn't Jason's previous tendencies that got him killed, it was his mother. For those who don't know, Jason Todd discovered that his mother was in fact his step mother and went on a quest to find his real one, which led him and Bats on a quest round the middle east to find her, coincidentally tying in with stopping the Joker from selling nuclear weapons to terrorists. He finally finds his mother, a respected Doctor, who just before had been blackmailed for medical supplies by, you guessed it, the Joker. Anyway, Jason finds out about Joker squeezing his mom, goes to help her, gets separated from Batman who says to wait for him to return, finds his mother, who in turn leads him straight to the Joker in order to stop her own stealing and embezzaling from being discovered. She sets up her own son to get killed by a psychopath so she wouldn't go to prison. So Joker beats him to a bloody pulp with a crowbar, and then locks both of them in a warehouse and blows it up, killing them both.

(Of course, in typical DC fashion, he's alive again now.)

Also, in Spoiler's case, Batman also stopped her from being Robin after a serious error in judgement on her part, because he felt she couldn't handle it. Of course, this is once Batman had developed into a Grade A asshole ALL the time, and it didn't stop her from starting the biggest gang war that Gotham has ever seen, due to a botched attempt to impress Batman.

The only part of Batman having a Robin that is wrong imo, is that he trained for a whole decade before becoming a vigilante, whereas (with the exception of Damian) the children who become Robin train AS they go. He doesn't let them out on the streets straight away, but it's only about 6 months worth of training before they're out there with him, and there's no way you can tell me that they are able to think, fight and defend at the same level as him at half his age in 1/20th of the time. Batman may be a genius but he's no miracle worker.

Is it right for him to have a Robin? I don't really think so. The idea of a sidekick who shares his ideals and experiences is a good one, but taking teenagers and shoving them into a never ending war with lunatics, gangsters and even monsters without the 10 years of study and training that Bruce Wayne underwent is not. However, at the heart of it, that is not the purpose of Robin. The purpose of Robin is to keep Batman sane and to prevent him from falling into madness with all his enemies. Having an ally that understands the Batman so completely is essential to Batman's survival, or so Alfred (who is more or less Bruce's only father figure) thinks anyway.

Plus each of them would have gone out and done it regardless of what Batman thought, so at least he's there to watch out for them.

In Batman Last Rites, they show a 'what if' story as if Thomas and Martha Wayne hadn't been shot and Bruce grew up to be a millionaire playboy, however Grayson's parents still die. Well Grayson went off to get revenge still and ended up being captured by the Joker and was tortured for 10 days and the body was police never found the body (ironically, the body turned up in what would have been the Batcave).