The Dark Knight is Coming ...

It's almost here ...

The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's second installment of the "Batman" epic, will premier in theaters in one week. Not only is this one of the most anticipated movies of 2008, but it is the last time people will be able to see the work of Mr. Heath Ledger, a very gifted actor who left us too soon. While the death of Heath Ledger is very tragic, sometimes I feel bad for Christian Bale, the other star of the film, who is getting practically no press or acknowledgement for the role. Shouldn't we give credit to the man who finally brought a real darkness to the Dark Knight? You don't really think Keaton was better, do you?

In preparation for The Dark Knight, I've been reading even more than usual about the Caped Crusader. I recently picked up a new book entitled Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. A very corny title, granted, but a very interesting read thus far. One particular essay inside by Mark D. White entitled "Why Doesn't Batman Kill the Joker?" struck me. In the essay, White argues that if Batman would simply off the Clown Prince of Crime, Gotham City would be a better place. It should also be noted that it was just recently released that no comic book villain is responsible for more deaths than the Joker. Some of this most potent deaths include Jason Todd, the second Robin, and Sarah Essen, Commissioner Gordon's second wife (is there a theme here? Did Nolan put Two-Face and the Joker in the same film for a reason?).

White raises a very interesting philosophical question: If a train was out of control and was about to hit five people, but you had the power to shift the tracks, causing it to only hit one person, would you do it? White goes further to explain that there are two types of people in the world: utilitarians and deontologist. Utilitarianism is a system of ethics that would encourage the person to shift the tracks and kill the one person, saving the five others. Since more people survived, the one person was worth sacrificing. Deontology states that we should judge the morality of an act based on features intrinsic to the act itself. The fact that five people were saved does not excuse the act of killing the one person. If it's God's plan to kill those five people, it is not up to us the murder the one.

Since the Batman does not kill villains (unless he has no other choice), Batman would be considered a deontologist. The inconsistency in Batman's character is that he risks his life (and that of a young boy) every night in order to prevent what happened to his parents from ever happening again. He does one action to prevent others. Yet, he won't kill the man who has killed so many in order to stop other killings from happening.

Still thinking about whether or not you are a utilitarian or a deontologist? Take this scenario into account. This is White's second situation. If you were a doctor, and you had five patients on operating tables in front of you (rarely happens, but go with it), and each one needed a different organ, and another doctor was in the room, would you kill the other doctor and use his organs to save the five patients? Probably not. Why was that decision so much easier than the situation on the train tracks? It's still one life for five. The character of the Batman would never let either of these situations occur. Like most heroes, Batman would find a way to fix the situation without anyone being killed. Batman would sooner allow himself to die than to let an innocent person be killed.

But the Joker is NOT innocent. Why should this human life be treated with the respect that he does not have for the rest of the human race? As a deontologist, is Batman in the right state of mind to actually think that there is a chance that the Joker might not kill again? That he might actually turn over a new leaf this time? It is also worth noting that a deontologist would consider self-defense an appropriate reason to take another life. Is it reasonable to say that Batman has never been in a situation where killing the Joker would be considered self-defense?

Throughout the entire essay, I could not help but ask myself a few questions. How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Would the Joker be missed? Is there a Batman without a Joker?

How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Like the deaths of so many comic book characters (Superman, Jason Todd, the Flash to name a few), publishers would have to find a way to bring him back. The Joker is the model for all other villains, yet no one has ever been able to recreate him. Why? It's quite simple. Look at other famous villains. Lex Luthor wants to make money, Mr. Freeze wants to save his wife, and the Riddler wants to show off his intelligence. But the Joker has no motive. This is what makes him so diabolical. There is no point to his wrath other than to make a joke of life. He finds his crimes funny. The public loves him so much because they can't relate to him. He can understand the need for money, revenge, and to show off. The Joker is an untouchable villain because no one can understand him. So he attracts us more.

Would the Joker be missed? Yes! Not only would the public miss him, but Batman would not be able to continue without him. Throughout his career as Batman, Bruce Wayne has never come up with a reason for the death of his parents. Since the Joker has never given a reason for his insanity, he attracts Batman to crime fighting. Like Batman, the Joker is attracted to the Batman's motiveless (the Joker does not know about Batman's parents) need to protect a city that is completely ungrateful to him. They keep each other in the game and without the other, one would fall.

Is there a Batman without the Joker? Again, no. The air that Batman breathes is the knowledge that there is someone out there who will kill for no reason and laugh at his triumph as well as his defeat. This brazen disregard for human life reminds Batman that he is not the only person to lose his family and suffer for no reason. In this sense, the Joker makes Batman feel better. The Joker gives Batman a purpose in life. Without him, Batman has no purpose. As a human -- which is what Batman simply is -- Batman needs a purpose in life or else his life need not continue.

Why doesn't Batman simply kill the Joker, Mr. White? While we can argue about whether or not it is morally right until we are blue in the face, it's not a question of morals. In fact, if Batman is keeping the Joker alive to give himself a reason to keep going, than the Batman is neither utilitarian nor deontologist. He is, in fact, just as sick and twisted as his greatest archenemy. Actually ... maybe sicker!