Batman and Philosophy 3: Batman's Virtuous Hatred

[Razor]

I'd like to reiterate here that I am taking these topics from a book, Batman and Philosophy. I am paraphrasing the essays included, and presenting them to WZ as a whole. Just trying to give as much props to these authors as possible, and side-step any plagiarism claims evident.

---
Batman is driven by one thing, really. His hatred of all things that are causing harm to his beloved Gotham. He seeks to restore Order to a hurting Gotham, and the villains just want to bring a little Chaos. Batman confronts these enemies with a sort of hatred that only full-on extremists would know. He blatantly hates these criminals, and he makes no effort to hide this hatred. The question, is, can Batman be a good man if he hates so strongly?

If one were to listen to Aristotle, perhaps not. Aristotle tends to argue that virtue is found in a person's actions. A virtuous action, for instance, would be to feed a starving child. A non-virtuous action would be beating someone. A person is only virtuous if their actions are what a virtuous person ought to do in that situation.

For example, in Batman: Year One Commissioner Gordon cheats on his wife, but comes clean to her about his affair. To Aristotle, his actions would be considered virtuous only if a virtuous person would have done the same.

This theory presents a few problems. For one, we tend to think that people are virtuous based on what goes on in their heads. I should be considered virtuous if I think that I should help poor people, even if I don't have enough money to donate to the local poor.

Also, actions can be seen as virtuous or vicious even if a "bad" person were to make them. A person such as "The Roman" Falcone, in The Long Halloween, loves his son. Love is considered virtuous by most. However, in the very comic series linked, Falcone places a million dollar bounty on both the Catwoman's and Batman's heads. How could Falcone be considered virtuous because he loves his son, while at the same time being an obviously evil mob boss?

There is a counter explanation of virtue, one that focuses more on the thoughts of a person. A person is only as virtuous as his thoughts, this explanation argues, and views that a person's thought is virtuous if it comes from loving what is good and hating what is bad. Batman's hatred for evil men can be seen as virtuous in that it stems from the love of the happiness of Gotham's citizens while hating the evil of the criminals. Also, it has the attractive additive that a person is only as vicious as the amount of vicious thoughts he has, or as virtuous as the amount of virtuous thoughts he has.

For example, our mob boss Falcone is vicious because he has many more vicious thoughts than he does virtuous thoughts.

I, for one, never really liked Aristotle's Virtuous People act virtuously theory. If a person were rendered helpless, does that mean they are no longer virtuous? Even if they think the most virtuous thoughts? I lean much more toward the Virtuous Actions and Thoughts theory. It allows for the duality of man in a much greater capacity.

So. Is the "Virtuous-Persons Theory" more appropriate? Or how about the "Virtuous-Thoughts-And-Actions Theory?" Is Batman virtuous because he hates evil, or is he vicious because of that very hatred? Stake your claim.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Batman doesn't hate his enemies. Joker is probably the only exception, because he keeps killing/crippling people close to Batman, but as for the rest, he doesn't hate them. Batman only hates crime and corruption, but realises that some people have no choice but to turn to crime and others do it for the sick thrill/joy that it brings.

He doesn't hate Arnold Wesker for having multiple personalities, even if that other personality is Scarface.

He doesn't hate Poison Ivy for trying to protect plants by mutating them and attcking people with them, he just thinks that she is too extreme and misguided, but he doesn't hate her.

Batman's crusade is a war on crime, not a war against brightly coloured psychopaths. They are a bi-product of Gotham City, seeing as how the majority of them were created/became villains well before they met Batman.

Is Batman virtuous? I guess that depends on your stand point for vigilante justice. Batman's mission, to rid Gotham city of the criminal aspects entirely so that the citizens can live peacefully is indeed virtuous.

Bashing the living fuck out of mental patients however, is clearly not.

Returning them to Arkham/Blackgate to be fully rehabilitated instead of punishing the villains himself would also be considered to be virtuous.

The only part of Batman's crusade that isn't virtuous imo is his methodology. Spying on.... well, the whole world really, not just Gotham, almost non-stop, wearing a costume and a mask instead of joining the secret service, and violently assaulting his enemies, who are basically mental patients are NOT virtuous acts, but you have to consider what would happen if he did play by the rules.

If he wasn't going to spy on Gotham and it's neighbouring cities, he wouldn't find out about half the stuff he does find out about, and more people would suffer, and the influx of crime would increase.

If he did operate within the law, he'd get caught up in red tape, be issued none of the tools he relies upon in his nightly routine, and would be subject to any corruption within his unit from superiors or anyone else, so therefore, more people would suffer and the influx of crime would increase.

And if he didn't beat the crap out of the Joker or Scarecrow or Mr Freeze whenever he caught up to them, the body count would probably be 10x worse than it usually is.

Are his methods virtuous? I've always subscribed to the notion that the ends justify the means, so yes i would say that Batman and his crusdae against crime is indeed virtuous, but i will re-iterate again, that he doesn't hate his enemies (Joker aside).