• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.

dark knight philosophy

Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,503
Points
38
WARNING: if you have not seen the dark night yet, don't read this, go watch it, then please read on.



after seeing this movie i realize how much most other movies just suck. no real thought or effort put into the dialogue. i don't think i can bring myself to watch another spiderman movie after seeing this movie and how high it has taken the bar for a "superhero" movie. seriously this is the best film i've seen since crash or saving private ryan.

something in the movie that really got me thinking and a little upset was the rules batman held himself too, and the joker's demented, yet at the same time realistic, take on mankind. why if batman has the best interests of gotham at heart will he not kill the joker when given the chance? is saving a life that if allowed to live will take many others the right thing to do? this is where i find batmans actions not to be in the best interest of the civilians of gotham, but rather in more of an overly righteous dogma that holds one to a set of rules that is not (always) for the greater good.

the scene that struck me the most is the 2 ships scene where: both ships were rigged with explosives, ship A held the detonator to ship B's explosives, and ship B held the detonator to ship A's explosives. they were told that in 15 minutes both ships would explode....unless one of the ships detonated the other before the 15 minutes expired. now putting the movies rather unlikely scenario aside where everything ends up ok, what do you think should have happened? should both ships have to die? does it make a difference that one of the ships had all convicts on it? i answer no to both of these, one of the ships should do what must be done to save the most lives. i don't have the ability to judge a person's merit on whether they deserve to live (thus why them being convicts holds no bearing) but when 1000 people are going to die, and you have the ability to save 500, you need to do what must be done and detonate the other ship.


if you had to take a life, but you would in turn save 100 people, would you do it? if you had to take your own life to save 100 people, woud you? i can honestly answer an unequivocal yes to both of these questions.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
509
Points
16
What you are asking here is one of the most influential questions. The Batman could not kill the joker because that would have meant victory for the joker. Gotham would have seen its hero abandon his moral code for the "Greater Good". The problem with that is, him killing the joker might have been for the greater good, but what about the next guy he kills for the greater good? Once you start deviating from a code you are in a world of grey. Like Dent said "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". Batman works in conjunction with the justice system and in essence the people. He does not kill because that would be unilateral decision making, he leaves it up to the courts to kill someone or not.

That being said, i would likely take a life to save many, i would give up my life to save many, hell i would probably give up my life just to save one. But that might or might not be the right thing to do.

The problem with "the greater good" is that it has to be determined by a number of people, not just one.

Just my thoughts
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,839
Points
38
use SPOILER tabs you n00bs
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,503
Points
38
^idk how to use those sorry
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,503
Points
38
Originally posted by Ryeland
What you are asking here is one of the most influential questions. The Batman could not kill the joker because that would have meant victory for the joker. Gotham would have seen its hero abandon his moral code for the "Greater Good". The problem with that is, him killing the joker might have been for the greater good, but what about the next guy he kills for the greater good?
what do you mean like batman would go on some kind of killing spree? if another villian as hianus as the joker came around, then he should be delt with the same way, right? :dunnodude:


Batman works in conjunction with the justice system and in essence the people. He does not kill because that would be unilateral decision making, he leaves it up to the courts to kill someone or not.

but i thought the reason he was called "the dark knight" was because his method of heroism is that of a vigilante or someone who doesn't always follow the rules, right? he's not superman or captain america, i always thought of him more like the punisher in his methods of justice. i could be wrong though.

That being said, i would likely take a life to save many, i would give up my life to save many, hell i would probably give up my life just to save one. But that might or might not be the right thing to do.

me too. however i would not give up my life to save just one. it is not up to me to judge whether someone else's life is worth more than my own.


The problem with "the greater good" is that it has to be determined by a number of people, not just one.
true. but does that make it right? even if you have a code of conduct that you apply to yourself, how can you justify allowing a man to live that will undoubtedly kill many others? ok, so the joker "wins"....what does that mean? if the joker "winning" means that hundreds of peoples lives are saved with the demise of his, than i'd be perfectly fine with him "winning"

i've always believed that even if you have a set of rules you abide by, you should always take into consideration individual circumstance before acting. that is not to say that you just disregard your rules whenever you think is allowed, only when extereme circumstance permits.
 
Braaq

Braaq

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
6,698
Points
38
One of the best movies I have seen. Lived up to allll the hype for sure. Heath Ledger was amazing as the psychopathic Joker.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,503
Points
38
One of the best movies I have seen. Lived up to allll the hype for sure. Heath Ledger was amazing as the psychopathic Joker.


but what about the philosophical points it brings up? i'm interested to see what you think?
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
509
Points
16
what do you mean like batman would go on some kind of killing spree? if another villian as hianus as the joker came around, then he should be delt with the same way, right? :dunnodude:




but i thought the reason he was called "the dark knight" was because his method of heroism is that of a vigilante or someone who doesn't always follow the rules, right? he's not superman or captain america, i always thought of him more like the punisher in his methods of justice. i could be wrong though.



me too. however i would not give up my life to save just one. it is not up to me to judge whether someone else's life is worth more than my own.




true. but does that make it right? even if you have a code of conduct that you apply to yourself, how can you justify allowing a man to live that will undoubtedly kill many others? ok, so the joker "wins"....what does that mean? if the joker "winning" means that hundreds of peoples lives are saved with the demise of his, than i'd be perfectly fine with him "winning"

i've always believed that even if you have a set of rules you abide by, you should always take into consideration individual circumstance before acting. that is not to say that you just disregard your rules whenever you think is allowed, only when extereme circumstance permits.
I don't know that he would go on a killing spree. But the precedent would be set. If the Joker was bad enough to kill, then maybe next time someone slightly less bad is bad enough to kill and so on. It would lead batman into a very gray area is all i am saying. I too have thought of Batman as more vicious than superman, but he is still a hero. If you read the comics and in batman begins they describe bruce's goal is to be more than a vigilante. He is to be an inspiration, a symbol of hope that good can be done in this world. If he were to become a killer, even in the name of good, he would inspire other people to do the same. To fight crime is one thing, to kill criminals is another. The case of the joker is very extreme. If he were to kill him it would give off the image that killing criminals is alright to do. And while for certain criminals that would be a good thing, a common thief who may be stealing to feed his kids is not a good target for this. You see where i am going with this? I don't know, i feel as if i rambling a little.

I see Batman as being very aware of the monster that lives within him and absolutely unflinching in his desire to use it for good, and not sink into madness.
 
lifterdead

lifterdead

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,700
Points
38
Not to be overly critical, but the "philosophy" in The Dark Knight is nothing new and not particularly well presented. (Save for Heath Ledger's monologues.)


Don't get me wrong! I loved the movie and will go see it again this weekend. It's just a comic book movie adaptation of moral/ethical crises that have been many times over, often much better.


after seeing this movie i realize how much most other movies just suck. no real thought or effort put into the dialogue.

What movies? Maybe you just haven't seen any good ones lately. Download Der Untergang (Downfall) if you haven't yet. I think someone posted the link on this site.


Remember, I'm not bashing The Dark Knight. Great film. It certainly has risen the bar for comic book movies. But there are other movies that have dealt with the same issues and done better, IMHO.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,503
Points
38
I don't know that he would go on a killing spree. But the precedent would be set. If the Joker was bad enough to kill, then maybe next time someone slightly less bad is bad enough to kill and so on. It would lead batman into a very gray area is all i am saying. I too have thought of Batman as more vicious than superman, but he is still a hero. If you read the comics and in batman begins they describe bruce's goal is to be more than a vigilante. He is to be an inspiration, a symbol of hope that good can be done in this world. If he were to become a killer, even in the name of good, he would inspire other people to do the same. To fight crime is one thing, to kill criminals is another. The case of the joker is very extreme. If he were to kill him it would give off the image that killing criminals is alright to do. And while for certain criminals that would be a good thing, a common thief who may be stealing to feed his kids is not a good target for this. You see where i am going with this? I don't know, i feel as if i rambling a little.

I see Batman as being very aware of the monster that lives within him and absolutely unflinching in his desire to use it for good, and not sink into madness.


i understand what you're saying on the precedent. one must realize if someone is merely a criminal, or a psychopathic murderer with no regard for human life. i see how this would not "look" good on batman's resume considering what he stands for. but in the interest of the city, it is the best choice. it is a difficult situation though.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,503
Points
38
Not to be overly critical, but the "philosophy" in The Dark Knight is nothing new and not particularly well presented. (Save for Heath Ledger's monologues.)


Don't get me wrong! I loved the movie and will go see it again this weekend. It's just a comic book movie adaptation of moral/ethical crises that have been many times over, often much better.




What movies? Maybe you just haven't seen any good ones lately. Download Der Untergang (Downfall) if you haven't yet. I think someone posted the link on this site.


Remember, I'm not bashing The Dark Knight. Great film. It certainly has risen the bar for comic book movies. But there are other movies that have dealt with the same issues and done better, IMHO.

thanks for the film suggestion. i'm not a huge movie goer so i probably haven't seen many films such as the one you suggested that portray this situation so well. that's likely why i was so impressed with the dark knight.
 
Line

Line

Chaos reigns.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
9,834
Points
38
Not to be overly critical, but the "philosophy" in The Dark Knight is nothing new and not particularly well presented. (Save for Heath Ledger's monologues.)


Don't get me wrong! I loved the movie and will go see it again this weekend. It's just a comic book movie adaptation of moral/ethical crises that have been many times over, often much better.




What movies? Maybe you just haven't seen any good ones lately. Download Der Untergang (Downfall) if you haven't yet. I think someone posted the link on this site.


Remember, I'm not bashing The Dark Knight. Great film. It certainly has risen the bar for comic book movies. But there are other movies that have dealt with the same issues and done better, IMHO.
This post wins. I'll also add that I feel that the thematic issues of more worldly concern that are present in the film are probably more interesting and better done than the aforementioned.


Also, I added spoiler tags for you brats.
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,503
Points
38
This post wins. I'll also add that I feel that the thematic issues of more worldly concern that are present in the film are probably more interesting and better done than the aforementioned.


Also, I added spoiler tags for you brats.


could you elaborate please? i don't fully understand what you're trying to say.
 
Pickle

Pickle

Team Winklaar
VIP
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
4,675
Points
38
"if you had to take a life, but you would in turn save 100 people, would you do it?
if you had to take your own life to save 100 people, woud you?"

depending on circumstance no to the first

No matter the circumstance definate no to the second. think about it. how am i going to ensure 100 people are going to live if im dead?

Me "Oh im noble shoot me and let me save 100 people like jesus would."
Criminal "ok" *boom headshot* "ya know,I think Ill kill the 100 anyway."
Me "GG."
Criminal "NO RE"
 
Duality

Duality

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,503
Points
38
^ i understand that situations like this are very unlikely and more fantasy than reality. but humor me, if it was an absolute gaurentee that 100 people would live if you died, would you do it?
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
509
Points
16
i understand what you're saying on the precedent. one must realize if someone is merely a criminal, or a psychopathic murderer with no regard for human life. i see how this would not "look" good on batman's resume considering what he stands for. but in the interest of the city, it is the best choice. it is a difficult situation though.

Very good point. But one has to remember the philosophy of batman, to be a symbol, an ideal for people to follow. I agree that it should be easy to distinguish a common criminal from a dangerous psychopath however if you are personally involved in that conflict the choice is not so easy. Batman is trying to avoid sinking to the joker's level, he is afraid if he does, he will be as bad as the joker. Imposing his own law upon the city, being judge jury and executioner. While i agree a normal person might not do this, the comic book universe is an exaggerated one. I am merely arguing from the point of batman the comic book character, not as if he were a real person.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
509
Points
16
Not to be overly critical, but the "philosophy" in The Dark Knight is nothing new and not particularly well presented. (Save for Heath Ledger's monologues.)


Don't get me wrong! I loved the movie and will go see it again this weekend. It's just a comic book movie adaptation of moral/ethical crises that have been many times over, often much better.




What movies? Maybe you just haven't seen any good ones lately. Download Der Untergang (Downfall) if you haven't yet. I think someone posted the link on this site.


Remember, I'm not bashing The Dark Knight. Great film. It certainly has risen the bar for comic book movies. But there are other movies that have dealt with the same issues and done better, IMHO.

I agree with you, other movies have dealt with the issues of heroism and morality in a better way, however the Dark Knight brought a whole new level of brains and emotion to superhero movies. You are right it has raised the bar for superhero movies, but it also brought this level of thought to a group of people who may not have been interested in watching No Country for Old Men or There will be Blood. Plus there is no denying that the joker is badass and one of the best villains to ever appear on screen.
 
Top