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.

  • paradox2011@lemmy.world
    1·
    25 minutes ago

    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.