I know they're fictional characters, but take this as an exercise in philosophy. Try and have some fun with it. Batman is a crime fighter. The Joker is a criminal. In the norms of story telling, you'd have a straight forward, black and white moral dilemma, just like those stories were first told, back in simpler times. A little later on, things got complex. The Joker never stuck to plans of world domination. He has no interest in material things. How ever misguided, twisted or dark, he's an idealist. One popular fan theory is that he is a soldier suffering from PTSD, and the things he does are all a means to exposing how perverse and corrupt the status quo are. Time and again, he sets out to show how evil 'polite' society really is. Batman defends this system, although he works outside of the rules of it, as a vigilante and occasional detective. When you have a system that can be considered evil and/or corrupt, who are the heroes and villains? The ones protecting that system, or the ones trying to end it?
Everyone is selfish for his own desires. The world isn't large enough to accommodate everyone's desires.
Exactly. The heroes want to force everyone to live by their rules. The villains want to be free of rules.
Both "heroes" are equally dark but I think what makes the difference is Batman fights to protect the innocent because the system failed... so the better of the two nutcases.
So, now this brings up a few other ethical quandaries. Is he actually protecting innocents or is he protecting the system? Or are his methods geared more toward revenge? Isn't it possible that what he does is in reality a vain attempt at trying to prevent what already occurred? How well does this parallel our modern day 'war on terror' as a response to 9/11? And, what metric might he be using to determine what an 'innocent' is, if that is his actual focus?
Batman, I think he's disregarding the system to protect the innocents, which makes him a criminal, but also geared toward revenge, because he's a flawed hero... same as the war on terror... revenge and justice for the innocent but with dubious methods... The Joker, well he's right polite society is.... I think evil is a bit strong, let's call it dishonourable but civil. Being civil allows it to continue within the system. I don't think you can compare the Joker to Islam extremists... definitely the lady in distress who scream the loudest let's face it Batman is a bit of a ladies man
So, operating outside the system, whatever he considers innocent isn't based on that system either, right? The ideas might overlap or even be identical, but maybe they don't match up at all. Potentially, the civility covering for the lack of honor can make it more reprehensible than an honest but wicked system. I might if I speculate on his motivations or ideology, but seeing as this is the religion and philosophy section on PF, I'd bet good money that several people that frequent this place could do a very good job of it actually. No doubt. It seems to wreak havoc on his judgment, fairly often. How much more should we question his methods and methodology because of it?
As I see it, the Joker is in it not for his ideology, the ideology is just a justification and source of inspiration, not really the driving force. The Joker does oppose the current system and he does take steps to bring it down (I don't know enough Batman lore to make a better picture than that) but he doesn't really show an alternative (not driven so much by a image of the future as much as hatred, or maybe more accurately a bizarre fascination with the current system). Batman acknowledges the flaws of the system but concludes that the options would be worse.
This is essentially the same question as: "Robin Hood: Hero or villain?" Robin Hood took by force from the rich and gave to the poor. He was, essentially, the 'welfare system' of his time. What he did was to one, criminal, while to another, benevolent. When it was really just self-serving egotistical aggrandizement that drove him. So, the answer to that question depends upon the perspective of the person to whom it is posed. To the Batman/Joker question: We are a nation of laws, and so I must fall on the side of lawfulness. If the joker feels the system is unjust, he should work within the system to effect change. If he can present a compelling argument he will gain enough followers to successfully lobby government for change. Anarchy is never the FIRST path to follow, it is the LAST.
As twisted a vision as it might be in either case, I think they are both motivated by their individual perspectives of truth and honesty. The Joker's focus might be simply 'calling a spade a spade' or lifting the veil. Batman seems to be more about staving off the inevitable. I can't put my finger on it but I sense some nihilism at play in both their playlists. It's hard to hold them down to this, because different writers and different mediums completely alter many aspects of these characters, but at the heart of each, certain aspects are sacrosanct.
Robin Hood is another great character to explore the same themes. He saw the system as being unjust. Accounts vary on who he 'stole' from. In some cases the focus was on taking back what the rich gained from the poor, by robbing the rich. Other times, his crew robbed the crown to return what was stolen by the crown. So the ethical question there might be whether or not stealing back what one party stole from another is theft or justice. That Robin doesn't just keep what he takes speaks to it being something closer to justice. In the case of Batman, I don't think he can see what he does as a permanent solution. It isn't so much a cure as a treatment for the incurable, and that treatment isn't working as administered by the system, so he has to do what he does outside that system. Sometimes he's depicted as a knight, and other time he's depicted, correctly, as a vigilante. I believe in the case of the Joker however, he believes he can succeed in ending that system, so his path that he is devoted to, is the last. It's the only one he needs, and I'm not sure anarchy is specifically his goal, though it might be. Is his motivation just exposing the truth to maybe validate his own existence as a monster or shame all the hypocrites and parasites, or wiping the slate clean so evil might be prevented this time? It is indeed all a matter of perspective.
Seems about right. I would say Batman is about making the best of the situation, regardless of whether it is inevitable.
The war on terror is, for one example, but if you mean the Batman example, Batman doesn't purposely kill anyone. Sometimes he doesn't go out of his way to save others, and in his early days, he did kill people who 'deserved it'. http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html The Joker, on the other hand? If he doesn't view anyone as an innocent, the question doesn't apply. What he does speaks to a similar convention as Batman. He views the kills he does, whether he hires those out or does them himself, as either that they deserve it, or they were merely collateral damage for a 'greater good'. The movie 'The Dark Knight' has several examples of this. One of the best is his speech to Dent in the hospital: According to this, Rachel's death was nothing personal, and what he does is in the spirit of fairness. The same fairness he offered to the people on the ferries later in the film. Assuming you're familiar with the film. My apologies if you aren't.
I think the central theme behind that movie might be that the particular reasons for why we live the way we do- the associated ideals and principles we set up and enshrine- whether we a good or bad guys- is usually self-centered, self-interested garbage. That when pressure comes to bear, we show more clearly that self-interested, self-centered side to ourselves. Societies apparent stability and relative peace is actually held together by subtle and overt forms of force and the threat of force. When the Joker begins to peel apart this structure of force and persuasion, h's pretty much showing you how much our society is based on bullcrap. That we aren't civilized, we aren't different, we are the same animals as before...still in the jungle. Instead of trees and rivers it's buildings and roads. At least...that's my take....
There are no heroes and villains. There is only me and you. Each of us have the capability to kill one another.
You're basically making The Joker's argument from "The Dark Knight". In that film (with the late and superb Heath Ledger), the Joker argues (both to the mob bosses, the police, Batman, and Harvey Dent) that there is no "society", no "civilization"....that it's all a sham and that he hates the hypocrisy of that sham....and thus seeks to discredit it or destroy it. While he argues (and hates him for it) that Batman is for upholding society and civilization and is part of the hypocrisy....and thus when Batman goes "outside the law", like in the interrogation scene in the film......Batman "proves my point". It's also part of the original Nolen Christian Bale film's exposition on the role of the "League of Shadows"....which sought to destroy Gotham City because it saw it as corrupt, even though it would mean the deaths of millions. They hated the "corruption" of "society" (or "civilization") and believed that it couldn't be reformed....but that it needed to be "wiped clean and started fresh." Such ideas, to go political, have an appeal to the Extremists on both the Left and Right. The Neo-Anarchism.....that you see in the Far Left radicals or anti-G8 "Starbucks window smashers".... or the "Break up the US and let us patriotic individuals live our lives without a tyrannical Federal Government" Secessionist types on the Right (typically white separatists).
There's more than just the two of us, and we all have the capability to protect or destroy. Surely somewhere in that vast sea of people, there must be some heroes and some villains, especially if the society we find ourselves in promotes competition, scarcity and tribalism.
Those appeal to a lesser extent on people who don't want to go the extent of a clean slate wipe, right? This explains the popularity of Trump and Sanders at the extreme ends, as far as I can tell.
Interesting point indeed. I must admit that I never looked at it from that angle. I guess the answer to your questions are rather subjective, because it depends on the view of each individual whether the system is worth protecting. As I think of the options presented here, I must admit I'm still a Batman-guy and I support the protection of the status-quo. The problem I see in the concept of ending any system radically, is that there is no establishment of what to follow it with. It tends to be followed by chaos and many additional problems, including civil war. The status-quo, even if it's rather bad, represents some form of stability and peace. I see the destruction of the status-quo as a short minded short term goal, which leads to bigger problems mid or even long term. Unfortunately, this overthrowing of the system followed by civil war tends to repeat itself in our history quite a lot.
