While the philosophical debate that the authors attempted to raise in “Should The Batman Kill The Joker” was meant well, it was too poorly designed to be effective. The different philosophical approaches are all worthy of discussion, as is the topic of torture, but when the basis for discourse is unsound logic, it is much more difficult to properly analyze its philosophical worth.

 What bothered me the most about the essay was the massive leap in logic when the authors compared killing the joker to torturing terrorists. Killing a convicted psychopathic clown is different from torturing suspected terrorists who have not had a trial. They are completely separate ethical issues. Not only are they unrelated, but the comparison of a serious moral dilemma to a fictional hypothetical situation detracts from the gravity of the fact that the US government signed the Geneva Convention outlawing torture, and then promptly found a loophole so that they wouldn’t have to abide by its rules. This is a monumental debate in the United States today, and comparing it to a comic book character trivializes the real issue. 

Although the authors intended to make it a more discussable topic to draw more people into the debate, they failed. Unfortunately this is because the foundation upon which their entire philosophical debate was built, is flawed. The most disappointing part, is how much potential their hook had. If they had used the Batman analogy to discuss the death penalty it would have been much more effective. Then, an invigorating ethical debate could have ensued, and it would not have been based entirely around a defective thesis.