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.
An Excellent point, coupled with excellent language...all in all a strong argument.
ReplyDeleteIt is a grave error, as you have reasoned, to comparing the Joker to a terrorist. The Joker being fiction cannot possibly be likened to an Al-Qaeda terrorist, in either atrocity or number of victims. Therefore, the entire argument proposed by the authors has to be tossed out, in order to accept the stark reality of our world's current situation. Terrorism is a real threat to the people, but to combat terrorism, we cannot, under any circumstances, use their tactics and methods, including assassination and torture. To fight this threat, we must accept the world for what it is, and face it bravely, not cower behind comic book characters.
ReplyDelete"Terrorism is a real threat to the people, but to combat terrorism, we cannot, under any circumstances, use their tactics and methods, including assassination and torture." Why on earth not? Two wrongs not making a right certainly cannot be applied to much more than a sandbox analogy can it?
ReplyDeleteVery good argument, Gabe. I was initially intrigued by “Should Batman Kill the Joker”, solely based upon its first paragraphs. Oftentimes writers will initiate their works with a seemingly off-topic anecdote, with the intent of capturing the readers’ attention. While the utilization of a hook is certainly a valid and effective rhetorical strategy, it’s not always beneficial to the piece of writing as a whole. In the case of the aforementioned article, the hook (more specifically the Batman/Joker dilemma) was used as a conduit to express the writers’ ideas. Prior to reading your post, I was definitely not a proponent of the ideas presented article. Reading your post – specifically your section on trivialization – made me less “not a proponent” and more “an opponent” of the article (if that makes sense). What I hadn’t taken into consideration were the implications of juxtaposing a comic book character and terrorists. Yes, conveying any argument in this analogical medium may broaden the target demographic (to include people not well versed in philosophy). But when doing so belittles the actual issue, the ethical line is crossed.
ReplyDelete