• Omnificer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yea, it’s always been weird to me that Batman alone is being judged for not using lethal force. If that were part of any consistent values, wouldn’t every person who has had chain of custody of Joker, or even proximity to him, be morally obligated to kill him?

    If random cop that has had Joker in handcuffs, or random doctor who has been treating Joker, or even every other super hero on the planet hasn’t extra judiciallly executed Joker, why should Batman bear the obligation to do so?

    • vklortho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was about to make the argument that if batman killed the joker the only consequence for him would be his compromised morals, but if someone else killed the joker while he was in custody then they would at least lose their job and most likely go to jail and that’s not comparable. Then I remembered that if a cop killed him they’d just get paid leave before they were acquitted of the murder and worst case would have to get a job in a different city. So yeah ACAB.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then I remembered that if a cop killed him they’d just get paid leave before they were acquitted of the murder and worst case would have to get a job in a different city.

        That only became a possibility when they cast Nick Creegan.

    • ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yea, it’s always been weird to me that Batman alone is being judged for not using lethal force.

      Batman is the focus of the narrative and the audience. Of course he will be the focus of the criticism. But technically yes, a lot of others in universe do also share responsibility for any further victims of the Joker. After a certain number of escape, spree, capture, escape, spree, etc cycles surely they must have realized he cannot be rehabilitated and will continue the remorseless mass killings until he dies.

      or even proximity to him, be morally obligated to kill him?

      This is a compelling idea for sure, and could definitely lead to interesting questions in other cases. Let’s say the Joker has a body count of at least 1000 victims, how far back do you have to walk that number before such an obligation is no longer reasonable. Would a serial killer with 40 victims also be such a clear and present danger that they’d represent a moral imperative for their elimination? Or does it have to reach comic book levels of obscene?