The Morality of Batman

YouTube video

Batman won't kill. Period.

By allowing villains like Joker, Two Face, Scarecrow, Mad Hatter, and so many other rogue psychopaths to live, Batman has, in a weird way, allowed the murders of innocent victims to happen.

It's a very admirable trait that Batman values life and won't lower himself to kill like his gallery of rogues do. However............when does a hero say "Enough is enough!" Even Superman, in Superman #22, executed Zod and his allies (albeit an alternate universe) due to a sense of justice. What is the line?

Is Batman right or wrong? When is enough enough?

Does Batman need to kill? Is it truly necessary?

Where does justice draw the final line?

NB4 someone says "If Batman kills, then there would be no villains to tell a story."

I don't think he needs to kill, what he needs to do is use some of that money and invest in better security at Arkham

Originally posted by relentless1
I don't think he needs to kill, what he needs to do is use some of that money and invest in better security at Arkham

^This guy. 👆

Bruce doesn't care about making Gotham a better place, he just wants to beat up bad guys.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Bruce doesn't care about making Gotham a better place, he just wants to beat up bad guys.

O RLY?

If Bruce kills them then he'll see himself as the same kinda person as the one who killed his parents. He is afraid of that and will not do it even with the empirical evidence that if anyone deserved the death penalty it would be the Joker.

Whether he is right or not is kinda irrelevant. Whether or not killing a criminal would truly break Batman is also not really the point. Wayne believes it will and has thrown up so many mental barriers against it that it will always be a non-option.

Bruce could care less about Gotham, He just wants to shag the babes and beat up people... but he needs better armor like this ....

once he has this armor, he will instill fear in the heart of gotham cities criminal element and if necessary kill

Originally posted by Impediment
YouTube video

Batman won't kill. Period.

By allowing villains like Joker, Two Face, Scarecrow, Mad Hatter, and so many other rogue psychopaths to live, Batman has, in a weird way, allowed the murders of innocent victims to happen.

It's a very admirable trait that Batman values life and won't lower himself to kill like his gallery of rogues do. However............when does a hero say "Enough is enough!" Even Superman, in Superman #22, executed Zod and his allies (albeit an alternate universe) due to a sense of justice. What is the line?

Is Batman right or wrong? When is enough enough?

Does Batman [b]need to kill? Is it truly necessary?

Where does justice draw the final line?

NB4 someone says "If Batman kills, then there would be no villains to tell a story." [/B]

I notice you showing us the clip from the Red Hood cartoon. Great one, though I would suggest reading the comic too, as Batman goes in to a bit more detail about why he has his rule.

In the comics at least, Batman has caused deaths, even directly or indirectly, many times over the course of his career. The whole "I don't kill" thing is a relatively new invention (really only since around the late 70s/early 80s), and as such, comes under a lot of scrutiny due to different writers using different methods to get his point across.

Also, Jensen Ackles should be in a comic book movie already. Holy shit, the dude is awesome. He could play any one of a dozen characters.

Originally posted by Impediment
O RLY?

Not counting Baleman, Bruce is generally depicted as one of the smartest and richest people on the planet and yet he spends most of his time and effort on beating up the same group of criminals again and again.

Think about how many times the comics have gone out of their way to show that Batman doesn't like other heroes coming to his city.

Batman refusing to kill because of personal belief doesn't make it irrelevant, it makes Batman an idiot and morally inept.

Should Batman kill? The answer is yes, if he takes his role as "the defender of the innocent" seriously. If you know that someone is going to kill (as Batman is conciously aware that the Joker is going to break out of Arkham and kill hapless guards in the process when he sends him there), and you do nothing about it (As Batman does when he sends villains to Arkham knowing in advance they're going to break out and kill innocents), then you're basically committing negligence. It's not enough to make Bruce a bad person, but it's enough to make him a shitty hero.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not counting Baleman, Bruce is generally depicted as one of the smartest and richest people on the planet and yet he spends most of his time and effort on beating up the same group of criminals again and again.

Think about how many times the comics have gone out of their way to show that Batman doesn't like other heroes coming to his city.

😂

I'm not being a dick. I genuinely laughed.

He needs to use his influence, money and power to instate the death penalty.

Originally posted by -Pr-
😂

I'm not being a dick. I genuinely laughed.

🤘

Honestly I feel like Batman is a bit of a hypocrite. He goes outside the law and uses violence to beat the crap out of criminals... then he refuses to kill. Now I understand that beating up someone and killing someone is completely different, but even policemen are ready to pull the trigger if it is absolutely necessary. I feel like Batman should avoid killing when he can but be ready to do it if necessary.

And if he really didn't want to kill, at least incapacitate his opponents permanently. I don't know, break Joker's leg or blind Riddler or something. Otherwise it just keeps repeating.

I see both sides of the argument but I kind like Bats having the rule, its the one thing that sets him apart from the criminals themselves, it allows him to go all out in other ways, such as torture and scare tactics, beating people up and breaking bones; makes him more effective which is evidenced by the fact that everyone seems to be afraid of him which makes sense as people are just as afraid of pain as they are death, sometimes even more so. Like I said though Wayne needs to invest more money in beefing up the police dept, Blackgate and Arkham; try a little bit of preventative measures lol

Originally posted by relentless1
I see both sides of the argument but I kind like Bats having the rule, its the one thing that sets him apart from the criminals themselves, it allows him to go all out in other ways, such as torture and scare tactics, beating people up and breaking bones; makes him more effective which is evidenced by the fact that everyone seems to be afraid of him which makes sense as people are just as afraid of pain as they are death, sometimes even more so. Like I said though Wayne needs to invest more money in beefing up the police dept, Blackgate and Arkham; try a little bit of preventative measures lol

Yeah, but who would you be more afraid of, Batman or Midnighter?

Even the Punisher can instill fear in hardened criminals and he doesn't have flamboyant vehicles or scantily clad teenage boys following him into the shadows...

😐

I find it kinda funny that you have used the film with Jason Todd as the Red Hood, because he is probably the character that in the end would most closely resemble what batman would become if he decided to go back on his "no kill rule". Atleast from my perspective.

He's a prick, period.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Yeah, but who would you be more afraid of, Batman or Midnighter?

Even the Punisher can instill fear in hardened criminals and he doesn't have flamboyant vehicles or scantily clad teenage boys following him into the shadows...

😐

True and even them being "afraid" of Batman doesn't do Gotham any good as it hasn't stopped any of the criminals from committing crimes.

All it does is feed Batman's ego.

Originally posted by Reflassshh
He's a prick, period.