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.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve seen a lot of arguments about this and information but I still don’t know if I buy the premise that pulling the lever makes you the killer of the one which this hinges on entirely. Riddler is already the killer, you just have reduce the harm by steering him to kill the one instead of the five (assuming Batman didn’t have a gadget that could have saved everyone blah blah blah).
I keep meaning to dig into analysis of the trolley problem using different ethical frameworks. One of these days.
It’s true, if your main concern just who is the “killer,” which is valid. It’s just that there seems to be some responsibility conferred to our actions in the trolley problem, as we have the ability to change its outcome, 5 dead or 1. Many people side with utilitarianism here, but its a deep moral dilemma that is very helpful in exploring the nuances of ethical reasoning.
And basically, it has a different answer for essentially every ethical framework you apply to it 😆. At least in the moral justification. When you do look in to it, try writing down your personal feelings and reasoning, then check out the modified trolley problem with the large man and the bridge and see of your answers change. Interesting stuff.
Oh I was going to take notes and then replay The Trolley Solution to test my thoughts.
As a first pass not having looked at it as much though, I’ve always considered throwing the fat man to be immoral and murder due to the active participation needed to put him into harms way vs the passiveness of the trolley problem.
That game looks awesome, I’m definitely going to check it out.
Active participation and violation of personal autonomy are big factors in that version. It usually is enough to change the answer of people who took a more utilitarian view in the first iteration. But, they dont have any bearing on utilitarianism, so people who argue for killing the one in the first iteration are somewhat compelled to do the same in the second in order to achieve logical consistency. Otherwise there seems to be something questionable about how they reached their first answer.
It sounds like you may be more on the libertarian, Kantian side of the reasoning when it comes to human life, which I think is generally a safer place to be. But that’s the beauty of ethics, it’s all about the exploration and trying to see different viewpoints.
Superman wouldn’t have this problem
I think this problem fits really well for Batman. How many times has Batman maimed or injured dozens on dozens of henchmen, but refuses to kill Joker, just to satisfy his personal code?
but refuses to kill Joker, just to satisfy his personal code?
I’m not big into Batman, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Batman’s whole deal isn’t “I can’t kill because it’s always inherently wrong”, but that he’s afraid he’ll completely lose control if he crosses that line and become even more dangerous than the people he holds himself back from killing.
Sure, he doesn’t act as judge, jury, and executioner (except in some dark spins), but he also hands out serious life long debilitating injuries like candy to henchmen, because they’re just henchmen.
I wonder how many of them die ‘off camera’, too. Head injuries are no joke, and he has no qualms about administering blows to the head. I bet he’s killed plenty even if he doesn’t acknowledge it.
Wayne Enterprises has a very efficient private ambulance fleet to deal with the surprisingly-frequent head traumas that occur around Gotham City. It’s a free service paid for by the Martha Wayne Foundation.
There’s no way anyone actually survived those takedowns in the Arkham games. You can always see they still have a heart rate, but surely they’re at least in a coma or fully paralysed.
Love it. Virtue ethics vs consequentialism, arguing that virtue ethics is about moral superiority and control
Definitely feels like a straw man of virtue ethics to me. Especially as virtues ethics is less likely to have rigidly consistent actions as its result than something like natural law or kantianism. This feels like someone wrapped up all the thing they didn’t like about deontological ethics and made a cartoon about it 😄
But the trolly problem doesn’t have a correct answer.
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?
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.
You kill one to save five.
It’s the same reason we vaccinate. The risk from vaccination is possible but statistically tiny. So everyone vaccinates so that 1 dies and 100 million are saved.
These are definitely not analogous arguments, but your conclusions do both fall under a utilitarian moral umbrella. By this reasoning every individual is morally required, like the other commenter says, to do whatever is necessary to bring about the greater good for the greater number. Sounds nice on paper until you start visualizing the actual implications of the theory. Take a look at the “no rest” problem that utilitarianism leads to.
The trolley problem itself is designed to have no specifically correct answer, merely to be a vehicle (pardon my pun) for evaluating various moral frameworks, such as utilitarianism.
Ya know, if we butcher you for spare parts, we can save a few people on the donor waiting list.
What the hell are you waiting for? Seven pounds yourself.
![Batman vs The Trolley Problem [Existential Comics]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/66f90459-3a6d-4107-a9be-4acc3ca36bc9.png){kind=link}