Batman and Philosophy: Why Doesn't Batman Kill the Joker?

[Razor]

So. During my rather lengthy hiatus I happened upon a book. Not just any ordinary book, but a book edited by William Irwin. A book entitled Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul.

This book is the penultimate purchase for a Batman and Philosophy fanboy such as myself. I figured I would suspend the Art of Philosophy series and instead introduce questions based upon different chapters of this book. Once we run through this book, I will go and purchase the other books in this series. Of which include Watchmen and Philosophy, House and Philosophy, Superman and Philosophy, and many others.

So. On to some opinion making.
-----------------------------------------------

Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker? It's a rather honest question to ask, really. If the Joker kills so many people, wouldn't Batman be right to kill Joker and end the suffering of so many lives?

For Batman, it's not so easy. He is an extreme fighting extremes. The one thing that separates him is his idea that to kill would make him no better than the very criminals he has sworn to put away. The lives of thousands isn't worth killing one. Batman, in this respect, is very Kantian in his ethical approach.

Another question should be posed in this thread. Is Batman morally responsible for the deaths that Joker commits? I mean, Joker couldn't kill anymore if Batman were to kill him.

I would argue no, simply because Batman isn't pulling the trigger. Batman actively fights to keep Joker from committing these atrocities. It's not as though Batman is standing aside while Joker gases an entire town, saying "Oh Joker. He's at it again. Let's see what he does this time." Batman actively lives his life trying to stop the Joker, and will always choose the life of an innocent over Joker.

This thread boils down to two not so easy questions. Why doesn't Batman kill Joker? Is Batman morally responsible for the crimes Joker commits? Stake your claim.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

In a philosophical sense, I think that maybe killing evil would set the world off it's axis, in that the balance of the world would be shaken. In a battle of good v/s evil, evil doesn't have to die...it just has to prevail. I mean, in the first Batman movie, Joker died, but in the comics, he lives on and on. It's simply a case of saying that killing or death doesn't really solve the problem. Trying to prevent evil from prevailing by not taking someone's life is something that some may or may not get hope from.

And also, Batman's character is jaded. Losing his parents at an early age, Bruce Wayne was hell bent on revenge and killing anything that was considered 'evil'. Ironically, he grew out of that and realized that evil doesn't have to be killed to be stopped. Good just has to win. It proves that maybe people can change and not have to be killed in order to stop being evil.

 

[Wrath]

I've always thought comics are much more like wrestling. There is a tiny line between an anti-hero and super-hero. First of all we have to know the meaning of a hero. Hero is a saviour someone who wants peace for the world. In comics like in wrestling there are three types of characters. Heroes(Faces),Anti-Heroes(Tweeners) and Villains(Heels). So lets look at these characters.

Heroes:
These are the type of characters who wants to save the world but by doing it tries to not harm harm anyone. In wrestling the biggest example for this type of character is Hulk Hogan. In comics it works in the same way. Batman is someone whose parents have died. So he wants to be hero because he thinks that if he saves people's life he may've saved another people's parent's life as well. He doesn't want people having the same pains he had. It's same for Superman. When he was a baby his home was destroyed that's why he is trying to save the world don't want same thing happening to other people's planet. Thats why they always try to save the world and if they start to kill villains and do such things how could they say they're helping the world. So in Superman and Batman's psychology killing people is something bad.

Villains:
These are the exact opposites of heroes. They want to destroy or take over the world. The reasoning behind this is their past experience they may've lived a life no one wants to live and they blame the whole life for this so they want to take revenge from the world. If we look at the majority of the villains their biggest purpose is taking revenge. It's all matters for them. Actually there is nothing much to say about them because they can be simply described as exact opposites of heroes.

Anti-Heroes:
This is what really fucks up the whole concept of good vs evil. They are not black or white they're grey. The anti-heroes are the people who wants the good of world like heroes but do it in villains way. The biggest example of this in wrestling world is Stone Cold Steve Austin. Every anti-hero has a different psychology but lets the most popular one Punisher to compare with Batman. They both lost their family so why did they go in two different ways. I think it's more about how you take lessons from your experiences. Batman thought he may've lost his parents but at least he can make world better place for others to not have the same pains. Punisher took a different perspective and thought that world is seperated into good and evil. Good people must live and evil must die and by killing them he thought he was doing something great for his world just like Batman. His purpose is same with Batman to clean the world from bad people but the feeling that leads Punisher is revenge just like other villains.

It's what makes Batman and Punisher different. Batman does not want to take revenge he just wants to do something helpful for world if he kills Joker what makes him different from Joker but Punisher on the other hand wants his family's revenge and by doing it he thinks he also does something good for the sake of the world. It's the reason Batman does not kill Joker or someone else.

 

[klunderbunker]

There's a miniseries called Going Sane that in a way addresses this. Joker thinks he's killed Batman, and he regains his sanity. Later he finds out that Batman was only injured and not killed, and he returns to his usual self. What this says to me is that the pair are eternally connected. I read something once that said they're like a yin-yang symbol: one can't exist without the other and I think that makes sense. Without Joker or evil, there's no need for Batman. Without Batman or good, there's no need for Joker. Joker has also had the chance to kill Batman, but can't do it. Without one, there's no need for the other. It's an eternal chess game between the two, with Batman fighting to stop evil while never compromising his own beliefs and Joker always trying to create as much anarchy as possible. As for why Batman doesn't kill him, I think it's because of a desire to survive. Without Joker, there is no Batman.

 

[Dexter]

Stepping away from the comic lore for a moment (which is very difficult for me being such a huge Batman fan and all), I'll put myself in this position. Would I kill him, knowing that letting him live would almost certainly result in more lives lost later on?

I think... I probably would kill him. It goes back to the question of whether or not Batman is morally responsible for the lives the Joker takes in light of his refusal to kill him. No, in the strictest technical sense he's not responsible, but again, putting myself in his position, I'd FEEL responsible even if I knew, intellectually, that I wasn't.

As someone who has a very high regard for the sanctity of human life, it's a hard decision to make. One life is just as valuable as any other. The Joker, evil as he is, has just as much of a right to exist as any other person. He's a human life. I'm not comfortable playing the numbers game with lives... as in, killing one to save dozens or hundreds. It just doesn't work like that. But it's easy to say that when I don't have the power to save hundreds of lives in my hands. If I did... I think I'd be capable of killing someone to save them.

Putting it in the context of the comic lore, as has been mentioned already, it's not that simple. The Joker and Batman are connected inextricably and that introduces more complications beyond those I've presented, but speaking strictly to the philosophical aspect, yeah, I'd kill him.

 

[Shua]

I think Heath Ledger's Joker said it best.

"You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun."

As well, for you comic book fans out there, Batman gave an answer to Jason Todd in the final issue of the "Under the Hood" arc, just before Infinite Crisis.

Batman explained that it's not that he's never wanted to. He said it'd be way too easy to do it. Were Batman to kill the Joker, he fears he would become everything he has sworn to protect from Gotham.

Should Batman be morally responsible? Perhaps. We've seen both sides of that spectrum in the comics and in the movie. However, bottom line is that (short of killing him), Batman is doing everything in his power to stop the Joker and the like-minded villains of Gotham. At the end of the day, it's the effort he puts towards it, not the result.

 

[NSL]

I read something once that said they're like a yin-yang symbol: one can't exist without the other and I think that makes sense.

KB pretty much summed up my opinions on this. I know Dark Knight gets a little too much love around here sometimes, but the scene with Joker swinging upside down outside the building at the end is a good example of this, both in what he actually says, and the metaphor of the imagery.

Batman is kneeling in front of him, poised as the sign of all that is good about man. Joker is hanging upside down, swaying in front of hm, signifying all that is evil. While I'm sure it wasn't something they aimed for in filming, it definitely stood out to me as a "yin-yang" kind of philosophy.

As far as what he says, Joker says that him and Batman are bound to do their dance forever. Batman won't kill Joker out of being righteous, and Joker won't kill Batman because he's "just too much fun".

Is Batman responsible for the people that Joker lays waste too while running free? No. While he is a "hero", he's not the hero you'd expect him to be. He's the vigilante that puts them in police custody, and then it's up to the police and justice system to keep him behind bars.

 

[Shadowmancer]

The batman vs. Joker Question is forever being played out in the comics, I think it was played out best at the end of one of the graphic novels, I think it was the killing Joke, Joker tells batman a Joke about two prisoners in Arkham and they are escaping they are on the roof, they get to a gap in the wall and they have a torch with them, one says that you hold the torch and light over to the wall and I will walk along the light trail, then you follow, the response from the other guy is that the torch would be turned off by the other guy as he was halfway across. This was an allegory between Batman and the Joker. KB mentioned the story of Joker thinking he had killed The Batman and then going insane again after finding out that Batman was still alive.

The question of the Joker vs. Batman raises a slightly different question of whether the existence of Batman brings out the loonies or whether the loonies bring out batman?

 

[Razor]

Is Batman responsible for the people that Joker lays waste too while running free? No. While he is a "hero", he's not the hero you'd expect him to be. He's the vigilante that puts them in police custody, and then it's up to the police and justice system to keep him behind bars.

I think this is very important to point out. Batman is not the justice system of Gotham. In fact, he has made it abundantly clear that he is merely the man who delivers the bad guys to Commissioner Gordon. It is the justice system's responsibility to deliver due justice. It goes back to the writings of the "Leviathan," by Thomas Hobbes, which we will touch upon in a future thread, but put basically Batman gives the right to judge and condemn to the state. 'Tis why Batman is allowed by Gordon to do what he does. They both understand the precarious position their world is in.

Without Joker, there is no Batman.

In fact, this may have been mentioned in "The Dark Knight Returns," if I remember correctly. The Joker thought Batman was gone, so he made himself content with disrupting the order of Arkham Asylum with silly little pranks. Once he found out Batman was out of retirement, he broke out simply to cause some chaos in the order Batman created. In this effect, Joker is there as the agent of chaos because order "[is] just so boring."

In this effect, Joker and Batman are intertwined. Any time and any where Batman attempts to establish order Joker will be there to disrupt it. "TDK", "Arkham Asylum", and "The Dark Knight Returns" touch on this.

I never thought of it as you brought it about, KB. Without Joker, Batman would have no one to stop his quest for order...and without order to establish, Batman has no purpose.

 

[Paradox]

I find these two to be the most interesting characters in any forum. You have one hand the man that is willing to go to any level to bring someone to justice. (besides killing) On the other you have a man that is willing to go to any level to bring chaos to everything. I agree with a lot of what everyone else has said on here. Though I have some deferring opinions on some of the minor things.

I think while Batman might not be responsible for the deaths that the Joker has committed. He does hold himself responsible. I thought that that point of Bruce Wayne's character was portrayed extremely well in "TDK." It is a moral dilemma that Bruce has to put himself through each time he goes up against the Joker.

I think there was one sence in TDK was one of the best ways to describe the relationship between the two. Its when they are in the interrogation room. The Joker shows us what their relationship is.

[youtube]5C0_jDBxJ8w[/youtube]

To The Joker Batman is the ultimate challenge. He wants to break him, by making him break his rule. To me, that's why Joker won't kill Batman. In return, its the one reason Batman won't kill the Joker. If he does the Joker wins. Something he knows can't happen.

I don't know if each needs the other, but in a sense I guess they do. I believe the Joker needs Batman, more than Batman needs the Joker. Without Batman, what is the Joker going to do? We've seen that before. Like I said, his main goal is to make Batman crack. Give into the rage and kill him. Where Batman will finally have what he set out to do. As well as be done. So in that aspect, I see the Joker needing Batman.

Good thread.

 

[Nitafrong]

I never thought of it as you brought it about, KB. Without Joker, Batman would have no one to stop his quest for order...and without order to establish, Batman has no purpose.

This brings up quite an important point. Bruce Wayne always professes that he would prefer Gotham to be without Batman- to be able to survive without him. But how much has his existence actually caused the problem that he set out to prevent? The Dark Knight defiantly seems to follow the view that Batman created the Joker. If he did step away, would it solve anything? Can he actually step away? And if not can he really style himself as a rational and unbiased purveyor of justice.

In my mind, the importance of Batman remains in his symbolic message. He has not seized undue power for himself. He acts as an auxiliary to the state, allowing them to come into possession of the criminals, but not passing any judgement upon them. One could argue that bar the obvious undue force which he uses, Batman works within the letter of the law, making citizens arrests and delivering these to the authorities. So here Batman symbolically is showing his support for the state, highlighting to the people that they must work with the state- that it is the real purveyor of justice.

Of course all of this would come to nothing if Batman stepped beyond this and killed some of the criminals. Once he did this, he would be taking the law into his own hands, judging the men/women for their crimes, and passing judgment. He would be acting as an opposition to the state authorities, and would instead inspire the people to ignore the state and look after themselves.

Batman is probably also aware of that old adage by Lord Acton "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". In all history of man anyone who has had unlimited power has turned evil, no matter how good their former intentions were. If Batman himself was to have complete control, he would become corrupted too- soon to be little more than the people he hunted.

So yeah that’s why in my mind, Batman cannot kill the Joker, or indeed any other criminal. He does not see himself as one who posses this power, and indeed he does not wish to have it.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I never thought of it as you brought it about, KB. Without Joker, Batman would have no one to stop his quest for order...and without order to establish, Batman has no purpose.

That's not what Batman is all about though. He's not trying to ensure that everyone in Gotham plays nicely. His life mission is to avenge his parents death by ensuring that no other child would ever suffer the same fate that he did, by rooting out all corruption and evil in his city. He doesn't cripple jay-walkers or issue parking tickets, he prays on the superstituous minds of the criminal elite.

How many times have you read in Batman the phrase, 'criminals are a superstituous and cowardly lot'

When Batman first started out, he targeted the mob bosses and gangsters, crooked cops and murderers. He patrols the streets as well, knowing that the pickpockets, muggers and rapists are the ones that'll shit themselves when he descends from the rooftops to damn near cripple them, and that mystique then works its way up to the gangs and mobs until they're too scared to commit crimes in Gotham too. Let them move to Metropolis where they can get rounded up in a matter of seconds, or Keystone where, again, they'll get rounded up in seconds, but at least the Bat won't get them.

The colourful psychopaths came later. It's argued a lot that Batman attracts these kinds of lunatics, when it is in fact Gotham City that attracts them. The city is a criminal haven. The GCPD is always full of corrupt cops, the judges are usually on the take as well, and Arkham Asylum may as well have a revolving door in the back of it! There is only one villain in Bats' entire rogue gallery that HE is responsible for, and that's the Joker, and he isnt even aware of that fact. Maybe if he knew he'd have a totally different attitude towards Joker, but since Bruce Wayne isn't even Batman anymore, that's not likely to happen. Maybe Damian will blow him away instead, but many have tried to kill the Clown Prince of Crime and all have failed miserably.

I've read a LOT of Batman, and i've never understood why ANYONE would want to live in Gotham unless they want to be a criminal, or literally have no other options. Real Estate agents must go out of business at the drop of a hat in that town.

Anyway, to the point of the thread, why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker? Because while Batman may break the law, he still respects it. Every man is entitled to due process no matter how many times he breaks the law, and Batman is also not going to prove all his detractors right by becoming as dangerous as his enemies.

Who's to blame? The damn judges that don't order execution, that's who. Instead they turn around and say 'Well Joker, despite another 30 people dying as a result of your Joker Venom, you weren't caught by a recognised agent of the law, so therefore we can only send you to Arkham and hope you complete your rehabilitation.' He's killed several thousand people, enough to get the death sentence a million times over, and the court is too hung up on the fact that a guy dressed as a bat was the one who apprehended him.

There is something else Batman could do though. He could donate some of his never-ending wealth to Arkham Asylum to improve their security. I got the game recently, and had to laugh. I was like, 'HAH! Arkham is nothing like this on the inside. Did it suddenly get this way over night?' I've seen Bruce Wayne on the parole board of Arkham, but he's never given them money to beef up the security systems (to my knowledge anyway). If he used his $$$ to make the comic book Arkham to the same standard as the video game Arkham, most of the inmates would never get out, let alone all the time.

I also don't subscribe to this ying/yang bollocks either. That's Joker's perception of their relationship, not Batman's. Joker has nearly died because of Batman on several occassions. When Clayface posed as Thomas Elliot, Bruce's childhood friend, Joker shot him and Batman beat him to a bloody pulp and tried to kill him. When Catwoman tried to talk him out of it, he rendered her unconscious and carried on. If Jim Gordon hadn't turned up with a gun trained on Batman, he'd have strangled the Joker to death.

Later on the Joker returned from the depths to take revenge on Hush (Thomas Elliot turned rogue) who had humiliated him months before. The two squared off to kill each other with Bats in the middle, and rather than save Hush from the Joker, he left the two of them to it instead, although neither of them succeeded.

Now, it appears as though Joker no longer subscribes to that belief either. After a marksman dressed as Batman shot Joker in the face (and yes, he survived), he's gone to a totally new level of psychotic. He actually states:

"you and i, we had a special arrangement. a yin/yang thing. holmes and moriarty, tweety and sylvester, hats and gloves, but you..... YOU SHOT ME IN THE FACE! NA! NA! NA!"

So what can i say that summarises what i'm trying to say? How about....

Fuck what happens in the movies. They aren't written by anyone who writes the comics so they are not a sound basis for study into the Philosophy of Batman.

The Yin/Yang theory is only one perspective of the relationship between Bats and Joker, funnily enough, the Joker's perspective, so if you want to agree with a fictional murderous lunatic go ahead.

Joker needs Bats, Bats does not need Joker. Bats has emotional issues with 4 of his enemies at best, and they are Two-Face, Catwoman, Jason Todd and Thomas Elliot. You could say Talia Al Guhl as well, but she's never gone out of her way to fuck Batman over for her own ends, so i don't.

And he won't kill the Joker because, well, fuck man, name another long running series where the hero kills his main enemy. Did Captain America ever kill the Red Skull? Did Spiderman ever kill Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin? Wouldn't Superman have sucked if he'd just punched Luthor's head off in the first issue? If Green Lantern had wasted Sinestro straight away we wouldn't be about to have DC's 2009 event 'Blackest Night'.

He doesn't kill the Joker because it's just not good for comic sales is it?

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Well, the short answer as to why Batman can't kill The Joker is because The Joker is a pop culture icon, and you would have a fuming public if that actually transpired. Not to mention it would cause some people to lost interest in the Batman franchise with the most popular villain being killed off. So, it simply wouldn't be good for business.

Now, if we are going to look at this from a kayfabe perspective, very simply because Batman does not believe in murder. He believes in the justice process, as opposed to taking the law into his own hands with respect to determining the fate of those whom he defeats.