![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.
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.
I’ve always viewed myself as a utilitarianist but feel it’s hard to determine a correct utilitarian choice at the small personal scale like the fat man trolley problem so I revert to a more deontological/humanist framework. Like with the fat man trolley problem a lot of people might just focus on the six people involved, but I start thinking about the news headlines, the impacted families who lost whoever, and spiral. Where do you cut it off? That’s why I feel utilitarian falls apart small scale because it’s never actually small scale.
That is the hard part with the different viewpoints is that ultimately you can arrive at the same conclusion from very different starting points so does that make them both correct or does it hint at a universal truth since both arrive at the same answer? Aaaaand where off to the depths of philosophy and why it’s still a thing lol.
The calculus of felicity can be an unending spiral of implications 😅 Utilitarianism is very useful, living up to its name, but sometimes it becomes heavy due to that forecasting it demands.
That’s it exactly, there’s a saying in the scientific community: “science is never done.” I think that holds true for ethics as well in many ways. Sometimes all that really functionally matters is arriving at the right conclusion, but what really makes it the right conclusion? Is our reasoning sound? Or did we stumble upon the right path though imperfect or limited reasoning? Will that same logic lead us to a good conclusion next time as well, or somewhere else? It’s a wild ride, one of my favorite subjects. I like to imagine it as you describe, one monolothic, objective morality that we small humans are shining lights on to and grasping limited portions of through our philosophical efforts, slowly piecing together the greater whole as we combine theories and efforts.