Introduction to the Philosophy of Batman

Thoughts on Batman

The Theory and Philosophical Issues of Batman

 

Let’s discuss…

            Why Batman is a hero not a super hero

            The role of vigilantism

            The question of whether or not people are good or bad

           

            Batman has always been my favorite hero, and in fact there are several deep philosophical issues that are establish the story of Batman.  Notice that I used the word hero instead of superhero.  Batman is the ultimate superhero because, well, he’s a normal person.  He was not bit by a spider and gained his powers, he wasn’t born on another planet and ironically named “Superman” (in Latin, above man or not even a man).  Batman could exist in real life.  The element of being grounded in reality gives Batman a framework to be considered using real world ethical and philosophical standards.

            The first philosophical question[1] that Batman addresses is a variation of Plato’s Cave Analogy.  To quickly summarize the analogy - Imagine you were born facing the fire, knowing only the shadows on the wall.  Suddenly one day the door of the cave is swung wide open, and you stagger to the entrance to behold the sun shining and a big world awaiting.  So, do you exit, or do you stay in the cave?  A commonly accepted philosophical attitude is that most people would retreat to the safety and comfort cave.  It’s a big, scary world out there, and a human instinct is to fear what we do not know.

            Batman - or better said at this point in the discussion, Bruce Wayne - faces the same decision and in fact, he has a level of comfort which makes the decision to exit the cave even more admirable.  Bruce Wayne recognizes that the world around him is suffering, that it needs help.  His empathy extends not just to his family group but to a larger group �" the city of Gotham as a whole (perhaps his empathy is extended to a larger group than normal due to losing his family at a young age, but that is a different rant, let’s focus on the immediate one).  A billionaire, he could easily sit back in his mansion, enjoy the comforts of luxury, and ignore the suffering or problems he sees in his city.  Therein lies his choice �" shrug his shoulders, watch TV, and enjoy his riches or exit the cave to address the suffering he sees.

            Once Bruce Wayne exits his house (or quite literally cave), he assumes a different symbolic role, complete with a different uniform, different ethical standards, and a new name.   Batman, prompted by a desire to stop evil, takes on the role of enforcer of the rules.  He uses violence to achieve this end and ignores the preexisting social structure that is supposed to address the problem of evil �" namely the police and judicial branches.  Batman is a vigilante, and his actions in fact lead him to legal trouble.  The question of whether or not vigilantism is justified is a second philosophical issue raised in Batman that I will address at this point.

If everyone was a vigilante and exercised their version of justice as they see fit there would be chaos.  However, it is also important to point out that at the other end of the spectrum if vigilantism is not an option under any circumstance, chaos could prevail.  A rule based ethics perspective (such as Kant and the categorical imperative) would say that no, vigilantism is not justified.  A situational ethics perspective (such as Utilitarianism or Existentialism) would say the answer is more complicated and depends on the specific circumstances.

            Considering that Gotham City is in a state of near anarchy, Batman’s vigilantism is easier to philosophically justify.  As Hobbes discusses in his book The Leviathan, the authority of the law is grounded in the power to resort to violence when necessary.  The judicial and police branches are ineffective, but Batman gives them teeth.  Also important to point out is that Batman addresses very clearly wrong issues that affect the whole community.  He doesn’t go beat up a neighbor he doesn’t like or someone who ran a red light, but instead targets people who are negatively affecting a large group.  The greater the evil as measured by the total number of people affected, the swifter the response.  In fact, Batman is often hesitant to initiate his process of vigilantism, waiting until a situation has reached a point of no return.  Due to his cautious nature, his targeting of extreme cases, and the semi-anarchy state of Gotham City, I would propose that Batman’s vigilantism is justified.

            Batman comes out of his cave, he decides to take on issues he views as evil or wrong, yet the cynic asks, why bother?  Are people worth saving?  The third philosophical issue raised is whether or not one should have any hope in humanity.  Batman’s training in the art of combat was as a member of the League of Shadows.  Their mission is complicated, but to put it briefly League of Shadows is preparing an army for taking control of society.  They want to set up a situation that would result in total anarchy, a breakdown of society, in order to give people back the anarchy they deserve.  Think of it as a “you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet” so to speak.

            The League of Shadows is a clear philosophical representation of deciding that no, one should not have hope and people are not worth saving.  Under this philosophical view there is very little intrinsic value in a person.  People are divided into worth saving (the elite few), and the expendable majority.  I want to explicitly state that this is not Nietzsche’s excellent versus the herd concept.  Nietzsche’s viewpoint simply states that there are some people who excel and lead and the vast majority of people who are a bit simpler.  It does not take the next step saying that the herd is worth killing, that is a step that the League of Shadows takes it is not what Nietzsche purposes.

            Batman, as opposed to the League of Shadows, views the glass half full.  He decides that people are worth saving, placing an extreme value on society as a whole and individuals within it.  He puts his life on the line in order to help others.   There are countless quotes that suggest self-sacrifice is one of the highest ethical standards, tapping into love and a unity of life.  “No greater love…” -JC  “I want something good to die for, to make it beautiful to live…” �"Audioslave.  The list could go on.

            Kierkegard’s existentialism discusses the three main ways of life �" the ascetic, the ethical, and the religious.  Another important idea that Kierkegard discusses, the foundation of existentialism, is that living an ethical life is a choice.  You either affirm or choose to disregard ethics as you define them, but the choice is yours.  The focus is how to justify it and live it to the fullest as it applies to you, and not judging others.  To paraphrase “the ideal is to be objective towards oneself and subjective towards others.”  In relation to the Theory of Batman, it is worth pointing out that viewing the glass as half empty or half full in regards to having hope in humanity is a choice.  Batman is free to make a choice.  He could view people as expendable and worthless or he could value the life of an individual.  When considering the circumstances of his birth and upbringing, he witnesses his parents’ murder at a young age, it would seem Bruce Wayne has plenty of reason to give up faith in humanity.  Yet he does not.  He chooses the ladder

            It is Batman’s choices that make him heroic.  He chooses to address the problem of evil.  He chooses to exit the cave and take responsibility for a greater whole.  He chooses to become a vigilante due to the inefficiency of the justice system.  He chooses to value people and view them as meaningful.  All these are free choices, made by a person who could exist in reality.  If is for these reasons that I admire Batman and find exploring the philosophy behind the topic quite interesting.

 

Further External Questions coming up in the Philosophy of Batman

            Does one have to first love oneself in order to love others? / Is it healthy to fear death?

            Anarchy, power to the people, and the role of government.

            Can people become good?

            Is it worth it to hope?

            Is violence justified?

            What is evil?

 

---

[1] [1] Philosophical Question will be used interchangeably with “eternal question” (a phrase I borrow from Dostojevski).  Basically they are questions with no easy answer, not black and white issues but rather questions that are lived and debated.