How Can Batman Be Used To Compare And Contrast Utilitarian And Deontologists Approaches To Ethics
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed
Order NowThis essay introduces us to the ethical approaches of deontologists and utilitarianism, and compares and contrasts their beliefs through the study of Batman. So who is Batman and what makes Batman appealing for so many people out there? He is human just like the rest of us, But not quite like us. He has devoted his entire life fighting for justice, protecting his city of Gotham and avenging the brutal deaths of his parents. We as humans are constantly faced with making moral choices. However, the demanding choices that Batman faces are a matter of life and death.
So why doesnât he kill the Joker? How can he justify his actions? In the process, the essay will critically study Batman and his actions with the application of deontological and utilitarian approaches to ethics. In review of the essay we find out whether deontological or utilitarian approaches to ethics are best, and which perspective is best suited to the actions and thoughts of Batman. We begin with a simple outline of each ethic. Utilitarianism is a moral theory which is primarily associated with philosophical thinkers, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart mill (1806-1873).
This ethic is based on the âPrincipal of Utilityâ as mentioned in the book by both philosophers, âUtilitarianism and other essaysâ (1987), â⊠we shall do on the other hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other chain of causes and effects are fastened to their thrones. â (pg 25). A basic explanation of this is, utilitarianâs believe in maximizing happiness and reducing acts of evil, in a society in which everyone is equal. Deontology is another moral theory associated with philosophical thinker Immanuel Kant(1724-1804).
He refined the very idea of the âmoral lifeâ. The word âDeonâ comes from the Greek word meaning âdutyâ, and thatâs exactly what deontology is all about, âMorality was a matter of doing our duty just because it was our duty and for no other reason whateverâ (Mill, J. S. 1987 pg 23). Itâs all about doing the right thing. Even if itâs something we may not agree upon, itâs right for rights sake. By interlinking the approaches with Batman we ask ourselves, was his decision to go out and save the city of Gotham a good idea?
Batman made a promise after witnessing the murders of his parents in the 1939 Bob Kane and Bill Finger version f the Batman story, âand I swear by the spirits of my parents to avenge their deaths by warring all criminalsâ (White, 2007: 88). In relation to recent utilitarian Peter Singer (1946 â ), âif itâs in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything comparable moral importance, we out to, morally, do itâ (White,D. Mark 2008). The promise will only be valid if it maximises the good.
Utilitarian also addresses âmoral senseâ, which is principally âeveryone, has a natural sense of compassion when encountering someone who is suffering⊠e have a moral sense to restore their happiness. â As mentioned in Thompsons âan introduction to philosophy and ethicsâ (2008 pg 161). According to this, utilitarianâs will say that it was right for Batman to make that promise because his priority is to get rid of evil. Furthermore create happiness for the majority so no one has to go through what he did. The only way he could put end to evil is to fight crime.
On the other hand Deontologists perspective of making the promise is an element of Kantâsâ Pure practical reasonâ theory, âpositive act we take in order to shape our orld as we think is right; it is the act of our will⊠â (Thompson, 2008: 168). Out of the three forms available one of them is the Maxim, which is âa subjective principle of action, that is, a principle on which a man in fact actsâ (Wolff, R. Paul 1968 pg230) based on the âuniversal lawâ, meaning, someone can make a rule for themselves, but can only use it if they can apply it to everyone.
So Batmanâs decision to fight all evil and get rid of crimes will be of his goodwill if it can be universalised. So if he can fight crime then so should others. Both moral ethics agree upon Batmanâs decision o fight crime and keeping his promise. Even with these agreements, both agree but on different angles on Batmanâs decision to become who he is today. Deontologists will view this in aspects of his intentions. It doesnât matter if the outcome of his actions fails, he will be praised upon his goodwill and intention and not be viewed as immoral.
Where as utilitarianâs fought on the idea of the results of the action. If an act was done with selfish intentions however, the outcome made others happy, thatâs all that would matter. Progressing onto Batmanâs view on killing, or even not killing. Batmanâs response for not killing the Joker, (White, D Mark. 2008 pg 8) âif he ever kills it will make him as bad as the criminals that he fightsâ. He rejects the idea of becoming like the criminals who killed his parents. Even though killing the Joker will most likely eliminate the chances others getting murdered, itâs the pure fact that killing is immoral.
This has strong emphasis on the moral ethics of deontology. Deontologists do not kill. Whether itâs a murderer or not the universal law states that killing is morally wrong, âends never justify the means⊠â (Batman and philosophy 2008). Kant, âinsists that any human being can properly be called a persons knows his actions should satisfy, not only the legality (objective correctness), but also the requirement of morality (subjective worthiness)) from Wolff, R. Paul. Critical essays (pg 316).
Batman is committed to doing what is right because it is right, âthough he is very open about his strong desire to kill the Joker. â (White. D Mark 2008 pg8). So does that mean his intentions are not pure? According to deontologists whether the outcome is right or wrong, if the intention isnât pure, and is of vengeance it is onsidered Immoral. So how will Batmanâs decision not to kill the villains be seen in utilitarian aspect? Utilitarianâs are very much against killing, obviously with exceptions unlike deontologists.
One must kill if it maximizes happiness, and stops future killings. Utilitarian weakness of their ethic maybe that itâs all about the results and no one can always predict the results. In Batman Begins Rachel Dawes says to Batman: âItâs not who you are on the inside, but what you do, that defines you. â (http://brianbithertheology. blogspot. com/2008/07/batman-and-deontology. html) This suggests it doesnât matter what his intentions maybe, itâs the results that will become his identity. This is a very clear utilitarian outlook on making the right choices to maximize happiness.
If Batman had killed the Joker then thousands of lives could have been saved. Clearly the anger felt by one manâs death is much less than the anger felt by thousands of deaths. For example, the terror attacks on the twin towers, if Batman had known about the terrorists then killed them when given the opportunity, the anger wouldnât been as immense as it was felt for the thousands that died on September 11th. We can see that a utilitarian would clearly say that killing the Joker is morally the right decision.
Yet we can imagine a scenario where by removing the Joker, another villain will claim his place, and still the same people are killed. If Batman had killed the original 9/11 terrorists would someone else have taken their place? Taking into account another ethical theory to get a better understanding of Batmanâs morals in contrast to deontology and utilitarianism. One of many ethical morals in White, . D Marks 2008 Batman and philosophy book include, virtue ethics, âwhich mphasizes general character traits⊠rather than judging specific acts. (pg21).
So we have already noticed a contrast to deontology and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics will look at Batman in aspects of his character (and his culture) than the actions he takes whereas deontologists and utilitarianism emphasizes on the actions itself. So not everyone can become a Batman, âsociety demands different roles from each of usâ (2008 pg 21). Virtue ethics does believe that everyone has their own role in society, some may have the authority in society to use force against others e. g. police.
Virtues ethics will agree that Batmanâs decision to become a crime fighter was correct because his society needed that, but a deeper understanding is required in order to recognise Batmanâs position in society to kill another. After reviewing the essay both ethical theories have been compared and contrasted in terms of their beliefs and whether the choices that Batman has made was correct. Despite the strengths and weakness in both theories, from a personal view Batmanâs duty as a crime fighter is to take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary death of an innocent human being.
Though we hope imprisonment would satisfy this duty, in this case it cannot. This leaves us with only one other option that might take to help prevent civilian deaths; killing the Joker. Taking everything into account is Batman a utilitarian or deontologist? Majority of his decisions that he makes, makes him a decent deontologist. From his promise to make Gotham a safe place, to not killing anyone even a criminal, it all fits well with âduty-basedâ deontologist. He makes his choices due to the fact itâs the right thing to do. He knows that he doesnât have the right to take another humans life, no matter how bad the other person is.
Read also:
The Wicker Man
Clue Review
Pulp Fiction, directed by Quentin Tarantino