Can we all agree the Nolan Batman is a murderer after TDKR?

#1 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

It's pretty clear when Talia says it outright in the film. And, you know, it's a big part of her motivation.

#2 Posted by havoc1201 (518 posts) - - Show Bio

i guess he kinda of is a murderer but he just dosnt save ras, so yes and no lol

#3 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

He didn't just not save Ras, he caused the situation that led to his death.

#4 Posted by cattlebattle (12978 posts) - - Show Bio

He didn't kill him...he just didn't save him..haha
 
He inadvertently killed a bunch of people throughout those movies though.

#5 Posted by Omega Ray Jay (7902 posts) - - Show Bio

Not to mention the truck driver he shot from the Bat

#6 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

OK, let's get something straight.

If I am on a train with someone, sabotage the train so it's going to crash/cut the brakelines, and then escape knowing that person is unable to, I have murdered that person.

Capiche?

#7 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

@MuyJingo said:

OK, let's get something straight.

If I am on a train with someone, sabotage the train so it's going to crash/cut the brakelines, and then escape knowing that person is unable to, I have murdered that person.

Capiche?

Malice aforethought? No.

Not murder.

More like manslaughter.

#8 Posted by cattlebattle (12978 posts) - - Show Bio
@MuyJingo said:

OK, let's get something straight.

If I am on a train with someone, sabotage the train so it's going to crash/cut the brakelines, and then escape knowing that person is unable to, I have murdered that person.

Capiche?

True, but your just not suppose to pay it any mind...its a movie. 
 
Look at The Dark Knight, when pursuing the Joker in the streets Batman is smashing trucks with his tank that have people in them and is also just blowing up cars, which he has no idea if there any civilians in, with missiles from his motorcycle....its just a movie, no further thought required
#9 Posted by MatKrenz (1234 posts) - - Show Bio

Keaton Batman is an outright murder in '89. Remember when he put the the bomb in that factory when he was attacked by a bunch of goons and leaves ? Then the factory explodes and we don't even see any goons come ? Or the guy he burns in Returns ?

Also I know that in Begins Batman technically leaves Ras to die because he didn't take him on his glider thing but I don't think he could save him. I don't think the glider could support two people.

#10 Posted by havoc1201 (518 posts) - - Show Bio

also if he didnt crash the train then thousands maybe millions would have died so its all for the great good i guess

#11 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle said:

True, but your just not suppose to pay it any mind...its a movie. Look at The Dark Knight, when pursuing the Joker in the streets Batman is smashing trucks with his tank that have people in them and is also just blowing up cars, which he has no idea if there any civilians in, with missiles from his motorcycle....its just a movie, no further thought required

You can excuse anything that way. This is something that is pretty central if not a defining trait of the character being contradicted here, so it is definitely worthy of discussion and thought.

#12 Posted by cattlebattle (12978 posts) - - Show Bio
@MuyJingo said:


You can excuse anything that way. This is something that is pretty central if not a defining trait of the character being contradicted here, so it is definitely worthy of discussion and thought.

OK, then what is there to discuss? I think anyone can openly admit Batman did have a body count in the Nolan films, sometimes they were inadvertent but he still was responsible for peoples deaths
#13 Posted by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, he's a murderer, but not for the reasons you expressed. He's a murderer for all the faceless goons (and cops! Did you see some of those car accidents involving patrol cars? No WAY do you walk away from your car sliding 20 meters on its hood with the windshield smashed in) he killed while clearing a path. R'as had already claimed immortality and was/is a world-class ninja besides, if not exceeding Batman then at least on a level with him. He could have done anything to try and save himself from the train, but instead Nolan very deliberately lingers on a shot of Neeson calmly closing his eyes. R'as was never in any danger of dying his last death on that train.

#14 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (7983 posts) - - Show Bio
#15 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle said:

@MuyJingo said:

You can excuse anything that way. This is something that is pretty central if not a defining trait of the character being contradicted here, so it is definitely worthy of discussion and thought.

OK, then what is there to discuss? I think anyone can openly admit Batman did have a body count in the Nolan films, sometimes they were inadvertent but he still was responsible for peoples deaths

The inadvertent deaths can maybe be considered manslaughter. He willfully and deliberately murdered Ras.

#16 Posted by serpent222 (319 posts) - - Show Bio

To be fair, Ra's has to accept part of the blame. After all, it was he who made the train into a moving weapon, blasting pipelines all the way through the city. He put himself in that situation. Just because Batman sabotaged it doesn't mean he should be responsible for getting him out.

It is a bigger moral issue, obviously. But considering that "murder" is a legal term, it needs to be looked at in that sense. In this case, you could probably apply a sort of reasonable standard to the situation. Would an otherwise reasonable person on that train with Ra's in that same situation feel obligated to take him off of the train? Not an easy answer, but the response may favor on the side of no. This by no means exonerates Batman, as he is at least partly to blame, but I wouldn't put all the blame on him, and calling it "murder" is iffy at best.

At the very least, Batman is complicit in Ra's' death.

#17 Posted by cattlebattle (12978 posts) - - Show Bio
@MuyJingo said:

@cattlebattle said:

@MuyJingo said:

You can excuse anything that way. This is something that is pretty central if not a defining trait of the character being contradicted here, so it is definitely worthy of discussion and thought.

OK, then what is there to discuss? I think anyone can openly admit Batman did have a body count in the Nolan films, sometimes they were inadvertent but he still was responsible for peoples deaths

The inadvertent deaths can maybe be considered manslaughter. He willfully and deliberately murdered Ras.

He had no real way to save him. He HAD to stop that train from reaching the hub and he likely would have too much weight if he tried to take Ra's with him.
#18 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

@serpent222 said:

To be fair, Ra's has to accept part of the blame. After all, it was he who made the train into a moving weapon, blasting pipelines all the way through the city. He put himself in that situation. Just because Batman sabotaged it doesn't mean he should be responsible for getting him out.

It is a bigger moral issue, obviously. But considering that "murder" is a legal term, it needs to be looked at in that sense. In this case, you could probably apply a sort of reasonable standard to the situation. Would an otherwise reasonable person on that train with Ra's in that same situation feel obligated to take him off of the train? Not an easy answer, but the response may favor on the side of no. This by no means exonerates Batman, as he is at least partly to blame, but I wouldn't put all the blame on him, and calling it "murder" is iffy at best.

At the very least, Batman is complicit in Ra's' death.

Maybe you need to watch the scene again. Ras had the train speeding, but it was not unstoppable. It was Batman who made it unstoppable, the equivalent of cutting the brake lines and then escaped, while Ras was unable to. That is most definitely murder in the legal sense. Ras is not to blame at all. He was doing other criminal stuff, but it was Batman who murdered him.

#19 Edited by serpent222 (319 posts) - - Show Bio

@MuyJingo said:

@serpent222 said:

To be fair, Ra's has to accept part of the blame. After all, it was he who made the train into a moving weapon, blasting pipelines all the way through the city. He put himself in that situation. Just because Batman sabotaged it doesn't mean he should be responsible for getting him out.

It is a bigger moral issue, obviously. But considering that "murder" is a legal term, it needs to be looked at in that sense. In this case, you could probably apply a sort of reasonable standard to the situation. Would an otherwise reasonable person on that train with Ra's in that same situation feel obligated to take him off of the train? Not an easy answer, but the response may favor on the side of no. This by no means exonerates Batman, as he is at least partly to blame, but I wouldn't put all the blame on him, and calling it "murder" is iffy at best.

At the very least, Batman is complicit in Ra's' death.

Maybe you need to watch the scene again. Ras had the train speeding, but it was not unstoppable. It was Batman who made it unstoppable, the equivalent of cutting the brake lines and then escaped, while Ras was unable to. That is most definitely murder in the legal sense. Ras is not to blame at all. He was doing other criminal stuff, but it was Batman who murdered him.

I'm looking at it from a larger perspective. It is not "definitely" murder. Nothing is. He helped kill him, yes, but that does not equal murder. Killing someone in self defense does not equal murder. Would a jury convict Batman of murder in this situation? VERY possibly not. As such, it cannot "definitely" be murder.

Also, Gordon, a police officer, is the one that shot out the train's support and derailed it. Where does that put the situation? A police officer was acting in cooperation with Batman to save the public. We could say that Batman was deputized by Gordon, and his orders were never to save Ra's. In this case is it a murder, or just the police doing their job? It's a gray area. Period.

#20 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

@MuyJingo said:

@serpent222 said:

To be fair, Ra's has to accept part of the blame. After all, it was he who made the train into a moving weapon, blasting pipelines all the way through the city. He put himself in that situation. Just because Batman sabotaged it doesn't mean he should be responsible for getting him out.

It is a bigger moral issue, obviously. But considering that "murder" is a legal term, it needs to be looked at in that sense. In this case, you could probably apply a sort of reasonable standard to the situation. Would an otherwise reasonable person on that train with Ra's in that same situation feel obligated to take him off of the train? Not an easy answer, but the response may favor on the side of no. This by no means exonerates Batman, as he is at least partly to blame, but I wouldn't put all the blame on him, and calling it "murder" is iffy at best.

At the very least, Batman is complicit in Ra's' death.

Maybe you need to watch the scene again. Ras had the train speeding, but it was not unstoppable. It was Batman who made it unstoppable, the equivalent of cutting the brake lines and then escaped, while Ras was unable to. That is most definitely murder in the legal sense. Ras is not to blame at all. He was doing other criminal stuff, but it was Batman who murdered him.

R'as was going to "poison the water supply" and kill thousands, if not millions of people. The train was speeding to Gotham's central hub, under Wayne Tower.

If you watch the scene again, R'as actually implores Bruce to kill him, to which Bruce declines.

Anyway, Poor R'as, it's not as though he left Bruce to die in the burning ruins of his house only a short while before....

Second to that, Bruce saved R'as' life the first time in Tibet. Now Bruce is a) leaving him to his fate (not an active attempt at killing R'as, ergo not murder) and b) doing exactly the same thing to R'as that he did to him only half an hour before.

#21 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

Maybe you should implicate Gordon in R'as' murder too? Seeing as he's the one who blew up the train track? Hell, maybe you should blame the structural engineers who designed the track that was so easily destroyed.

R'AS AL GHUL'S DEATH WAS A CONSPIRACY!

#22 Posted by cameron83 (7504 posts) - - Show Bio

@serpent222: well,technically murder isn't a legal term,while at the same time it kinda is.Society sorta gives murder a definition,I think manslaughter is the better piece that fits here,but I agree with you.

#23 Posted by serpent222 (319 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83: Yeah, I'm just looking at it from a legal perspective. If you look at it morally, it is either much trickier or much easier. For utilitarians (doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people), Batman would be morally required to let him die to save move lives. As a deontologist (which I am), it is much more complicated. I don't know how many other schools of morality there are, but I'm sure to most people, it gets complicated.

#24 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

@serpent222 said:

@cameron83: Yeah, I'm just looking at it from a legal perspective. If you look at it morally, it is either much trickier or much easier. For utilitarians (doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people), Batman would be morally required to let him die to save move lives. As a deontologist (which I am), it is much more complicated. I don't know how many other schools of morality there are, but I'm sure to most people, it gets complicated.

As a deontologist, how would you view this situation?

#25 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

@serpent222 said:

I'm looking at it from a larger perspective. It is not "definitely" murder. Nothing is. He helped kill him, yes, but that does not equal murder. Killing someone in self defense does not equal murder. Would a jury convict Batman of murder in this situation? VERY possibly not. As such, it cannot "definitely" be murder.

Also, Gordon, a police officer, is the one that shot out the train's support and derailed it. Where does that put the situation? A police officer was acting in cooperation with Batman to save the public. We could say that Batman was deputized by Gordon, and his orders were never to save Ra's. In this case is it a murder, or just the police doing their job? It's a gray area. Period.

He didn't help kill him. He murdered him. He didn't kill him in self defense. His life was not in danger at that moment, and he didn't need to kill him to save people. He should have incapacitated him allowing him to stand trial, although that is a separate issue. It is 100%, definitely murder under a legal definition. Again, he cut the brakelines causing the train to crash with Ras on it. This was not necessary to save people, as Gordon was going to stop the train with the batmobile anyway.

Gordon had no knowledge that anyone was on the train. Even if Gordon did, him shooting the train is very different from Batman cutting the brake lines and leaving ra's to die. It isn't a gray area at all.

Batman unnecessarily cut the brake lines and then bailed, knowing he and not ras could escape.Under any state in the USA and in most western countries, that is murder. It was intentional, unnecessary and per-meditated. What exactly makes it gray?

@John Valentine said:

R'as was going to "poison the water supply" and kill thousands, if not millions of people. The train was speeding to Gotham's central hub, under Wayne Tower.

Yes, and it was Gordon who took it out and stopped that. Gordon could have stopped that even if Batman was not on the train cutting the brake lines murdering ras.

#26 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

@serpent222 said:

@cameron83: Yeah, I'm just looking at it from a legal perspective. If you look at it morally, it is either much trickier or much easier. For utilitarians (doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people), Batman would be morally required to let him die to save move lives. As a deontologist (which I am), it is much more complicated. I don't know how many other schools of morality there are, but I'm sure to most people, it gets complicated.

Sounds like a false dichotomy. Batman should never have even considered killing him, since it was never necessary. His only agenda should have apprehending him to stand trial.

#27 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

@MuyJingo said:

@serpent222 said:

I'm looking at it from a larger perspective. It is not "definitely" murder. Nothing is. He helped kill him, yes, but that does not equal murder. Killing someone in self defense does not equal murder. Would a jury convict Batman of murder in this situation? VERY possibly not. As such, it cannot "definitely" be murder.

Also, Gordon, a police officer, is the one that shot out the train's support and derailed it. Where does that put the situation? A police officer was acting in cooperation with Batman to save the public. We could say that Batman was deputized by Gordon, and his orders were never to save Ra's. In this case is it a murder, or just the police doing their job? It's a gray area. Period.

He didn't help kill him. He murdered him. He didn't kill him in self defense. His life was not in danger at that moment, and he didn't need to kill him to save people. He should have incapacitated him allowing him to stand trial, although that is a separate issue. It is 100%, definitely murder under a legal definition. Again, he cut the brakelines causing the train to crash with Ras on it. This was not necessary to save people, as Gordon was going to stop the train with the batmobile anyway.

Gordon had no knowledge that anyone was on the train. Even if Gordon did, him shooting the train is very different from Batman cutting the brake lines and leaving ra's to die. It isn't a gray area at all.

Batman unnecessarily cut the brake lines and then bailed, knowing he and not ras could escape.Under any state in the USA and in most western countries, that is murder. It was intentional, unnecessary and per-meditated. What exactly makes it gray?

@John Valentine said:

R'as was going to "poison the water supply" and kill thousands, if not millions of people. The train was speeding to Gotham's central hub, under Wayne Tower.

Yes, and it was Gordon who took it out and stopped that. Gordon could have stopped that even if Batman was not on the train cutting the brake lines murdering ras.

Are you trolling or being serious?

There is complete moral justification in what Batman did, regardless of whether or not it was murder. (Whichever way you look at it, it's not technically murder, anyway).

R'as was shown to be too powerful to be left alive. What would happen if Bruce saved him? He's magically surrender? No! R'as Al Ghul was an insane fundamentalist with a vendetta to complete. He would have escaped and done something much worse, probably worse than what Talia attempted in DKR.

#28 Posted by serpent222 (319 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine: On the whole, it depends on what maxim you apply to killing another person. If you settle on "killing another person is wrong," then obviously, Batman would be acting immorally here. It's also possible that one could argue for a maxim that people harmful to society should be permitted to be killed. If you believe this, then Batman was sound in his choice to leave Ra's behind. This sounds like it is kind of off to most people, but is actually the idea behind the death penalty. Then it would have to be amended to reflect that people harmful to society should be permitted to be killed by a regulatory body. Then we call into question whether Batman, who is generally accepted by the population, constitutes a regulatory body. I think most would say no, so in that case, he acts immorally. Personally, I subscribe to a maxim closer to "It is wrong to kill a person unless in defense of yourself or another" (you know, the general self defense thing). This particular maxim makes it a little harder. Ra's was not directly killing anyone BUT, he is directly responsible for most deaths that may occur through the madness of the fear toxin. To me, what it comes down to is that the toxin was already released. No additional lives would be saved in this situation by killing Ra's (they likely would have been down the road, but preemptive killing because you expect them to kill someone is morally wrong in my book). Also, Batman's life was not in immediate danger at Ra's' hand. Since no one's live is directly saved by killing Ra's, Batman acts immorally if we view it as Batman killing him.

HOWEVER, the next question is whether or not we are morally obligated to save someone if we are able, regardless of who they are. I believe that we are. So by my standard, Batman should have saved Ra's if he was able. But was he capable in that situation? My answer here falls to one factor: timing. If your life would be lost saving another, you are NOT morally obligated to save them (to me, though I think most would agree with me). So the question is, would Batman have had enough time to grab Ra's, rig him up (with possible resistance), and remove himself and Ra's from the train before it crashed? Honestly, I don't think he would have. Had he tried, I think Ra's would have resisted, and likely brought Batman down with him. That is conjecture, however. Stopping there, I don't think Batman would be acting morally wrong, IF he had considered that same possibility. Granted his statement of intent that he didn't have to save Ra's, though, it calls his motive into question. I could be here all day discussing the morality of motives, but I'll settle that Batman only said that to him for dramatic effect. This is, of course, my personal interpretation. There are no strict guidelines for what maxims are allowed in deontology, and a person is left to make their own.

tl;dr, I'll give my personal take on the three parties involved and their moral standings in the situation:

Gordon: Police are tasked with peacekeeping and saving lives by almost any means necessary. I believe you are morally required to fulfill your expected duties, and Gordon did. Even though it had lethal consequences, he is granted that right by society. Gordon acted morally.

Ra's Al Ghul: Ra's started all of this with the intent to cause panic, chaos, and death. Murder was an implicit part of his plan. Obviously, Ra's acted immorally across the board. I believe you are morally bound to the consequences of your own actions. Since Ra's was the architect of the situation: Ra's is a responsible party in his own death and should have been subject to execution by a regulatory body for his actions (aka: arrested and given the death penalty. But he would have gotten out of that, most likely).

Batman: Batman was acting as an individual with the idea of third party self defense in mind. His actions were aimed at prevented further destruction by the train. As the train would continue without Ra's, Batman would NOT have been morally sound in killing Ra's, as he is not delegated the power to execute. In terms of saving Ra's? I believe that Batman knew that he may not have enough time to save Ra's, and suspected that Ra's may resist if he tried. As such, he could not have saved Ra's without putting his own life in unnecessary jeopardy. In this case, Batman DID NOT act immorally. HOWEVER, if Batman determined that he had enough time and was able to save Ra's and deliberately didn't, THEN Batman would have acted immorally.

#29 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine said:

Are you trolling or being serious?

There is complete moral justification in what Batman did, regardless of whether or not it was murder. (Whichever way you look at it, it's not technically murder, anyway).

R'as was shown to be too powerful to be left alive. What would happen if Bruce saved him? He's magically surrender? No! R'as Al Ghul was an insane fundamentalist with a vendetta to complete. He would have escaped and done something much worse, probably worse than what Talia attempted in DKR.

I'm not trolling. It's a huge matter to me that they fucked up the character of Batman in this way. Someone who goes to lengths to save the Joker, yet in the movie kills Ras because it's easier.

And no, there is no moral justification for what Batman did.

You seem to have missed what I wrote above, so let me lay it out for you here again.

  1. Batman had Gordon get ready to bring down the train tracks
  2. There was no need for Batman to be on the train as Gordon was stopping it
  3. Batman sabotaged the train by cutting the brake line, also unnecessary
  4. By cutting the brakes, Batman caused the situation which led to Ras' death.
  5. Batman then escaped using the technology he possessed, knowing Ras did not have that same technology.
  6. That constitutes murder in the legal sense of the word, and certainly in the moral sense of the word

Imagine if 2 people were in a plane, there is only 1 parachute, and 1 person takes the parachute and sabotages the plane so it will crash. That is the same as what happened, and it is murder. No question about it.

As for Ras being "too powerful to be left alive" that isn't a decision for Batman to make. Or do you think Batman should just kill all the villains who pose a threat, if they are "too powerful to be left alive"?

Even if you think that, it is certainly out of character for Batman.

#30 Posted by serpent222 (319 posts) - - Show Bio

@MuyJingo said:

@John Valentine said:

Are you trolling or being serious?

There is complete moral justification in what Batman did, regardless of whether or not it was murder. (Whichever way you look at it, it's not technically murder, anyway).

R'as was shown to be too powerful to be left alive. What would happen if Bruce saved him? He's magically surrender? No! R'as Al Ghul was an insane fundamentalist with a vendetta to complete. He would have escaped and done something much worse, probably worse than what Talia attempted in DKR.

I'm not trolling. It's a huge matter to me that they fucked up the character of Batman in this way. Someone who goes to lengths to save the Joker, yet in the movie kills Ras because it's easier.

And no, there is no moral justification for what Batman did.

You seem to have missed what I wrote above, so let me lay it out for you here again.

  1. Batman had Gordon get ready to bring down the train tracks
  2. There was no need for Batman to be on the train as Gordon was stopping it
  3. Batman sabotaged the train by cutting the brake line, also unnecessary
  4. By cutting the brakes, Batman caused the situation which led to Ras' death.
  5. Batman then escaped using the technology he possessed, knowing Ras did not have that same technology.
  6. That constitutes murder in the legal sense of the word, and certainly in the moral sense of the word

Imagine if 2 people were in a plane, there is only 1 parachute, and 1 person takes the parachute and sabotages the plane so it will crash. That is the same as what happened, and it is murder. No question about it.

As for Ras being "too powerful to be left alive" that isn't a decision for Batman to make. Or do you think Batman should just kill all the villains who pose a threat, if they are "too powerful to be left alive"?

Even if you think that, it is certainly out of character for Batman.

I need to say that I haven't seen the scene in a while, so I'd need to re-watch it to comment effectively to break down the events. I don't recall him ever cutting the break lines, so are you referring to him destroying the control console? If so, I would need to watch that again for context before commenting.

On point 2, you may be right. I could reason that Batman wanted to make sure that Ra's didn't have another plan in place, which would give reason for a confrontation. But, if that is not the case, you could very well be right that batman didn't need to be there.

On point 5, Batman knows that Ra's has incredible intelligence, resources, and meticulous planning. He has no reason to assume that Ra's does not have the technology to escape. Even if he didn't (as a deontologist), Batman would not at all be responsible for what technology Ra's did or did not have. That would be Ra's burden alone.

On point 6, it COULD fit murder in the legal sense. It doesn't constitute murder UNTIL HE IS CONVICTED. That's why there are differences between murder, manslaughter, and killing. And I don't think Batman would ever be convicted. There is also NO SUCH THING as moral certitude. Everyone knows what they consider right or wrong in the situation, but there is no answer. There is an entire branch of philosophy regarding moral options and interpretations, and the fact is, there is never just one acceptable answer. People may heavily agree, but that doesn't make it objectively right or wrong.

I 100% agree with you about Batman not being the person to decide if Ra's was too powerful to be left alive (if, in fact, there is even such a thing, which I don't believe). And if Batman could have saved Ra's but decided not to, then I think you're right.

Man, I love this discussion.

#31 Posted by moywar700 (2775 posts) - - Show Bio

A normal da@MuyJingo said:

Even if you think that, it is certainly out of character for Batman.

This is a different version of Batman, one who is more willing to kill.Comic Batman wouldn't do it but movie Batman would.

#32 Posted by The_Lunact_And_Manic (3286 posts) - - Show Bio

As Nightwing said:

"YOU KILLED USING THE BAT SYMBOL!!111ELEVEN!!1"

#33 Posted by MuyJingo (1792 posts) - - Show Bio

@moywar700 said:

A normal da@MuyJingo said:

Even if you think that, it is certainly out of character for Batman.

This is a different version of Batman, one who is more willing to kill.Comic Batman wouldn't do it but movie Batman would.

I know. Kind of my issue with the films :(

@serpent222 said:

I need to say that I haven't seen the scene in a while, so I'd need to re-watch it to comment effectively to break down the events. I don't recall him ever cutting the break lines, so are you referring to him destroying the control console? If so, I would need to watch that again for context before commenting.

On point 2, you may be right. I could reason that Batman wanted to make sure that Ra's didn't have another plan in place, which would give reason for a confrontation. But, if that is not the case, you could very well be right that batman didn't need to be there.

On point 5, Batman knows that Ra's has incredible intelligence, resources, and meticulous planning. He has no reason to assume that Ra's does not have the technology to escape. Even if he didn't (as a deontologist), Batman would not at all be responsible for what technology Ra's did or did not have. That would be Ra's burden alone.

On point 6, it COULD fit murder in the legal sense. It doesn't constitute murder UNTIL HE IS CONVICTED. That's why there are differences between murder, manslaughter, and killing. And I don't think Batman would ever be convicted. There is also NO SUCH THING as moral certitude. Everyone knows what they consider right or wrong in the situation, but there is no answer. There is an entire branch of philosophy regarding moral options and interpretations, and the fact is, there is never just one acceptable answer. People may heavily agree, but that doesn't make it objectively right or wrong.

I 100% agree with you about Batman not being the person to decide if Ra's was too powerful to be left alive (if, in fact, there is even such a thing, which I don't believe). And if Batman could have saved Ra's but decided not to, then I think you're right.

Man, I love this discussion.

Glad you love the discussion :)

And yes, when I say "cut the brake lines" I am referring to sabotaging the control panel/emergency brake. Same thing.

Disagree with you strongly on point 5. That's like assuming, in my plane/parachute example from just a few posts up, that the person I'm leaving behind is wealthy so I am sure he has his own personal parachute. It is an unreasonable assumption, just as it is unreasonable to assume that a man has the means to escape a deadly situation he was not prepared nor was anticipating, for that I caused

On point 6...I've studied law, I know about the diffing definitions of murder. Batman's actions in the first film constitute murder. It doesn't matter if he is convicted or not, the actions themselves constitute murder, which is why that's what he would be charged with.

As for no no such thing as moral certitude...well, that's because people like to discuss thing. As soon as we quantify the issue, then we can start to discuss it objectively and reach a conclusion. It's a question of how logically you want to look at it, or how emotionally. Is killing 1 man to save 10 acceptable, if there is absolutely no other choice? There are schools that say no, but if we use human life as a metric, then it is acceptable. I'm aware of the many schools on the topic, but it's also one of those things I think gets away from the real world simply because it's an interesting topic

@serpent222 said:

Since Ra's was the architect of the situation: Ra's is a responsible party in his own death and should have been subject to execution by a regulatory body for his actions (aka: arrested and given the death penalty. But he would have gotten out of that, most likely).

I disagree here. Ra's was the architect until the point Batman sabotaged the control panel. At that point it was a new situation that Batman was the architect of, and so assumed responsibility. I also disagree with teh death penalty, largely because I think it is hypocritical and poor form for any society to condone such a primitive act.

I believe that Batman knew that he may not have enough time to save Ra's, and suspected that Ra's may resist if he tried. As such, he could not have saved Ra's without putting his own life in unnecessary jeopardy.

Are you really saying Batman could not have held on to Ra's or bat grappled him as he opened his wings and let the wind speed him away? After watching the scene I think there is no question Batman could have saved him without any risk to his own life, if he had wanted to.

#34 Posted by Yung ANcient One (4848 posts) - - Show Bio
I just thought it was annoying that He doesn't save RA's, but then wants to save the Joker. Plus make a point out of it.   Like really Bats  Really?  (+)  
#35 Posted by Death Certificate (5438 posts) - - Show Bio

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.