![Batman vs The Trolley Problem [Existential Comics]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/66f90459-3a6d-4107-a9be-4acc3ca36bc9.png){kind=link}
Existential Comics | Website
Alt Text
“At the heart of Batman’s being, like all theater kids, is a boundless narcissism that eats away at his core.”
Explanation
Many versions of Batman have a strict “no killing” rule, which is exactly the kind of intuition the Trolley Problem is attacking. Why is it different to actively kill someone vs passively letting five people die? In particular, Batman’s version seems to be a sort of “honor code”, which something close to a moral system, but it is entirely inward looking. In other words, fulfilling the honor system doesn’t do good for the world, it elevates the status of the honorable man. In a sense it’s the worst possible way to answer a moral question, “I want to kill the five people because I personally would lose something (my honor)”. Also its pretty showy to dress up as a bat. One might even call him a weirdo.
Transcript
8 Panel Comic
Panel 1: The Riddler stands at the lever explaining his setup of the classic Trolley Problem. Tied to one track are 5 people, and tied to the diverted track is 1 person. A trolley is prepared to mow down the 5 people unless the lever is pulled, diverting it to the path with one person.
Riddler: Alright Batman riddle me this. A trolley is moving down this track and is going to kill five people, but if you switch tracks it will only kill one, do you pull the lever?
Panel 2: Batman shakes his fist at the Riddler
Batman: Curse your implausible games, Riddler!
Panel 3: Batman hesitates in front of the lever, his hand shaking.
Batman: The right thing to do is save five people, but I have sworn to my code of ethics to never kill!
Panel 4: The Riddler exults in the devious dilemma delaying Batman’s decision.
Batman: I cannot do it! I cannot be the one to kill directly!
Riddler: Looks like the Batman has failed Philosophy 101! HAHAHAHAHA!
Panel 5: Batman watches as the trolley splatters 5 people across the track as the Riddler continues in his exultations.
Panel 6: Batman now sits in his Batcave as his Alfred arrives with his dinner on a covered tray.
Alfred: But what I don’t understand Sir, is how upholding your moral code can have more value than their lives?
Panel 7: Batman smoking a cigarette puts on his best grizzled and hard boiled face.
Batman: Because I’m a narcissist, Alfred. I value my own ego above everything, and I didn’t want to lose the “no killing” thing, because I like bragging about it. That’s all.
Panel 8: Alfred is shocked at Batman’s response.
Alfred: Really, I never thought so…
Batman: I dress up as a bat to fight crime. Of course I’m a narcissist. Your kind of a moron, Alfred, honestly.
in my opinion It does so long as you keep additional information away. If you start to ask questions about the people on the tracks then everything gets messy.
5 people are going to die. Or 1 person will die. Up to you.
Two boats are sinking. You only have time to save one. Do you save the boat with more people or the boat with less?
It doesn’t have a correct answer because it’s a thought problem, to get you thinking about morality. No one is responsible for the 5 deaths, but you would be for 1 if you pulled the lever. On the other hand 5 lives vs 1.
Does your answer change if the 1 person is a child, someone you know, or any other changes. It’s a way to show everyone has different ethical and moral beliefs.
But what if there are 3 sinking boats, 1 has a person you must save but the other 2 boats only have a goat on board, and you don’t know which is which. You chose 1, and it’s revealed that one of the other 2 has a goat. Do you stick to the boat you chose hoping that it has the person, or do you change to the other unknown boat?
You always switch for reasons I forget. Stupid fucking doors.
It is a math thing.
It starts with a 1/3 chance and they only show you the door if it is the wrong answer. So your first choice was 1/3 and stays that way but the other door becomes a 2/3 chance.
I still think it is weird that it works that way, but that is how it goes.
Is it ethical for a doctor to kill one healthy person in order to harvest their organs to save five people in need of a transplant?
A doctor can kill whoever they want. But only for science, of course.
I’m not sure I’d want to live in that world.