The Dark Knight became one of the highest grossing films in history after it hit theatres. Well, it was deservedly so. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker will assuredly be considered one of the top of this time and maybe ever. Something that often times is not acknowledged about The Dark Knight, probably due to the intense action and wonderful acting by Ledger, is the philosophy embedded in the film.
The issue I confront, though, is a bit more specific: What is Batman's philosophy? Is he pro-liberty? I would argue that he indeed is. The majority of his actions do side with liberty, although he certainly is not perfect.
In Gotham, the fictional city that the "caped crusader" fights crime in, the government has been corrupted beyond all belief (Washington insiders would fit in quite well). Much of the police force has been paid-off by the mob and evil is actively encouraged by public officials. So, in a moment such as this, the question must be asked: Has the government lost its legitimacy? My opinion is yes, it has. No longer was the government of Gotham City protecting its citizens like it was supposed to. As Locke argued, in the law of nature every individual has the ability to protect him/herself against others. However, in each moment all individuals are vulnerable to the invasion of another individual. The point of consenting to a "commonwealth," regardless of the type of government, is to maximize the protection of property -- a police force, established laws, and other government forces are supposed to be used for this limited purpose.
But Gotham City's government was no longer maximizing the protection of propety; rather, it was making life less safe for the citizens in the city. "[N]o rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse," Locke rationalized. I think this is pretty easy to agree with; the individuals of Gotham would not have consented to being subject to government's laws if they thought they would become less safe. The people of Gotham would have been safer under the law of nature than under the corrupt laws of the the government. And with that being said, it can firmly be established that the people of Gotham had a right to rebel -- Batman had the right to rebel. The government no longer had a legitimate claim to power.
Phew. Okay, so Batman was cleared to act. Now, how did his actions hold up for liberty? First, let's start with the major negative I see with Batman: anti-privacy. Lucius Fox, played by Morgan Freeman, noticed this problem after Bruce Wayne -- the man behind the Batman mask, for those who do not kn0w -- developed a system of mapping Gotham City by hacking into every citizen's cell phone. "This is too much power for one person...Spying on 30 million people isn't part of my job description." Three cheers for Mr. Fox. Batman was using this device in a consequentialist manner but the "ends justify the means" argument does not excuse the invasion of privacy, in my opinion. Batman should have acted above this, since he was so concerned with fighting evil.
A second charge against Batman that can be made is his unwillingness to allow others to help him, outside of Commissioner Gordon and Harvey Dent. In the beginning of The Dark Knight, Batman tells two civilian imposters, "I don't need help." However, as I will mention shortly, the "false Batmans" were violating his rule of not killing people by firing guns on the bad guys. This is one excuse when it comes to his monopolizing the vigilante power but I don't think it is a full justification.
But beyond these two blemishes, Batman has a fairly liberty-friendly record. Consider, as I just alluded to, Batman's rule of not killing others. Even after the Joker tempts the Batman by saying "...that's the rule [not killing others] you'll have to break to know the truth," he sticks to principle. Multiple times Batman has the opportunity to kill the Joker or other criminals but instead captured them and sought legal justice.
It can also be reasoned that when Batman does use violence it is in self-defense; the entire city is under siege and needs to be protected. Imagine if your neighborhood was corrupted to the point where nobody was safe; would protecting your community be considered self-defense? I do believe so and this is the case with Batman in Gotham; not until the city was at risk of extreme harm did he return with violence.
One of the greatest aspects of Batman's vigilantism is that it is completely privatized. In this sense, the entire film seems to stress a libertarian message, which is that private organizations can be more efficacious in protecting citizens than government can. Certainly Batman believes this, otherwise he would have taken an alternate route to fighting crime rather than privately developing security through Wayne Enterprises. Plus, Bruce Wayne "The Businessman" has an incentive to stop the crime. Gotham assuredly lost investment and capital during the high-crime years. Once again, this seems to imply the entire film has a liberty message; businesses have incentives to do good.
One last discussion point on Batman's liberty-minded vigilantism: He did not destroy the entire city merely to catch a criminal. Batman, and Wayne (when he was out of the mask), made mostly ethically sound choices along the way. He did not buckle on principle. Remember the story that Alfred, the butler, tells of the robber in Burma? When Wayne asks Alfred if they ever caught him and how, Alfred responds, "Yes...We burned the forest down." Wayne didn't revert back to this strategy, though; instead, he sacrificed himself by playing the villian in order to allow Gotham to rise again.
And so I think it can be said that Batman is a friend of liberty -- perhaps a masked libertarian -- and The Dark Knight may be a liberty-laced film, as well. As Alfred said of Batman, "He can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice." Indeed, the right choice was made, to side with liberty and freedom.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
A few quick moral questions:
1. Batman, chasing the Joker through the city in his Batmobile, accidentally runs over my wife in an intersection and kills her. Do I have the right to seek revenge or extreme compensation via threat of violence since, obviously, there is no system Batman submits to?
2. Batman, chasing the Joker through the city in his Batmobile, threatens to run over any number of pedestrians in my neighborhood. Do I have the right to pull out my rocket launcher and kill Batman to defend us?
3. When is a corporation in its rights to defy government and use violence to defend its interests?
Also...
Does Bruce Wayne own Gotham City? If criminals don't directly violate his property rights, does he have any right to use violence against them? Did anyone hire Batman to serve as a self-guided police force?
Btw, the Batman story is not really about philosophy. It's about adolescent (generally male) power fantasy, as are almost all superhero stories. Power, as they say, corrupts. Superhero stories are about as psychologically and morally unreal as it gets.
1. Yes, you can bring charges against him. Batman obviously does submit to a system because he has laws that govern his vigilantism, such as the rule of not killing others. Anarchy, it should be noted, has a system of laws. Batman would not want to kill your wife because it would result in your right to take revenge on him, it would cause social ostracism, but you obviously couldn't go to a court...since they are corrupt...which Batman was fighting.
2. Yes, you can prevent Batman from killing people in your neighborhood. That happens to be self-defense...
3. That's a very complicated question but my point was that government had lost its legitimacy, therefore defying it is completely acceptable.
4. Bruce Wayne does not own Gotham City but one need not own an entire city to defend it. Example: I can defend my neighborhood even if my house is not touched. Indeed, nobody hired Batman, although it seems they gave him consent through allowing him to act.
"Yes, you can bring charges against him. Batman obviously does submit to a system because he has laws that govern his vigilantism..."
Which system? The government that he is rebelling against? Himself? I tell him to apply justice to himself?
"Yes, you can prevent Batman from killing people in your neighborhood. That happens to be self-defense..."
Does that mean Batman is wrong to employ methods that threaten my life?
"That's a very complicated question but my point was that government had lost its legitimacy, therefore defying it is completely acceptable."
How much corruption, incompetence, etc. are we talking about? I get the impression that the line across which a government loses legitimacy is rather arbitrary. And Batman ignored the government when he wanted to. He didn't make any effort to overthrow it.
"I can defend my neighborhood even if my house is not touched."
So if someone perceives that I engage in risky driving behavior (drinking x amount of alcohol before getting behind the wheel) and pose a threat to the lives of other motorists and pedestrians (drive through school zones on my way home from the bar), do they have the right to kill me before I kill someone?
"Indeed, nobody hired Batman, although it seems they gave him consent through allowing him to act."
They could stop him? He surveyed their opinions? Generally superheros act in defiance of their communities and receive mixed support.
A lot of this morality, which is the basis for a Libertarian system, seems to have principles easily molded to justify whatever you and others find convenient.
Which system? The government that he is rebelling against? Himself? I tell him to apply justice to himself?
No, not the government he is rebelling against. He operates in the system of natural law, which is not hard to understand. It is not as if when government disappears or ceases to fulfill its proper function morality-based law evaporates along with it. Batman would be subject to the same type of vigilantism he is doing if he would wrongfully hurt an innocent person.
Does that mean Batman is wrong to employ methods that threaten my life?
If Batman were to hurt you then yes, you could defend yourself. Once again, that is self-defense and it is a right that we all have.
I get the impression that the line across which a government loses legitimacy is rather arbitrary.
I clearly defined where the line is when government loses its legitimacy, it is not arbitrary. As Locke argued, the government's purpose is to enhance the freedoms we have in the state of nature; that is to say, government is created by the people in order to provide a better protection of their life, liberty, and property. When a government ceases to fulfill this function -- like Gotham's government -- then it has lost its legitimacy.
So if someone perceives that I engage in risky driving behavior...and pose a threat to the lives of other motorists and pedestrians...do they have the right to kill me before I kill someone?
In an illegitimate state such as Gotham City -- where the police and government no longer protect the citizens life, liberty, and property -- the individual can defend himself (and community, which I will touch on in a second). The only violent action, though, is in self-defense. Therefore, if Person-A were to drive drunk and kill Person-B, then Person-B's family could seek justice in a stateless society and pursue Person-A (Rothbard describes why, though, Person-B's family may not want to kill Person-A in his great speech on stateless societies: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html) However, I would argue that if Person-B's family cannot, for whatever reason, carry out this justice it would be ethically sound for Person-C, a community member in the neighborhood of Person-B, to pursue justice. But, as I mentioned, only in self-defense and proportionate to the crime that was committed.
They could stop him? He surveyed their opinions?
Yes. The movie actually makes this perfectly clear. At one point the citizens of Gotham call for Batman to stop his actions and reveal his true identity; Bruce Wayne goes to a press conference in order to do this but is only prevented from "unmasking" himself when Harvey Dent lied about himself being the Batman. Therefore, it should be rightly inferred that public opinion definitely impacted Batman's actions.
You make some good points here, and I'll think them over.
"I clearly defined where the line is when government loses its legitimacy, it is not arbitrary...
When a government ceases to fulfill this function -- like Gotham's government -- then it has lost its legitimacy."
But I still think your lines of government legitimacy are not clear and would be difficult to apply in an objective manner. People in different neighborhoods of NYC might judge this matter quite differently from each other. If we were in Mexico right now, there might be more consensus, but it would probably still vary by region. In the end the rebel makes a subjective call and ignores the opposition.
Do you feel the USA government is illegitimate? Would you be within your rights to rebel right now?
I completely agree that it is difficult to apply -- the reason I wrote this is because in class we are discussing concepts such as political obligation and I realized that many of the theories within those concepts are rather abstract. There may never be a full consensus on whether government is benefitting the people or not, such as you point out, and therefore it is difficult to know when one can rebel. However, with that being said, I do think Locke's vision of government is worthy of trying and could be accomplished. It wouldn't be easy but I don't see things worth attaining as ever coming easy.
And I don't think the U.S. government is illegitimate but it certainly is heading that way in my opinion. I wouldn't have the right to rebel such as Batman is doing but we always have the right to peaceful, civil disobedience even if the government is legitimate.
I think it might be kind of a stretch to say that Batman is a Libertarian. As painful as that is for me to say, considering he is my favorite, next to the Objectivist comic book character, The Question. First, I think that him saving Gotham City is not out of self-defense. His motive must be looked at and as we see, it was the murder of his parents that motivated him, not self-defense for his community. It was more of a personal vendetta against crime. This is also indicated when attacking drug dealers. Obviously that is a personal choice to sell or do drugs. Batman has consistently taken out drug dealers and drug users. That also is in the beginning of The Dark Knight where he takes down Scarecrow. This would tell me that, although he doesn't adhere to the laws, he surely does believe in the laws, he just thinks that the government is not as good as enforcing them. I would also disagree that he believes that "ends justify the means". I think his view is inconsistent. Sometimes, like in that case, he did think that they justified the means, however, the fact that Batman refuses to kill the Joker shows that sometimes he thinks the ends doesn't justify the means. Surely a life without a menacing, murdering Joker, is a better one, but Batman refuses to do that.
I also think that Batman is not a good example of privately run "police" organization. First, he has no way of profiting off of what he does. He makes no money other than what he makes with Wayne Enterprises. Obviously this is not a good way of doing business. He does make it more effective but at the expense of other people's rights. This can be shown in Batman Begins when he captures a criminal, hanging him upside down, and continuously dropping him till he gives up the information Batman wants him. Or when he drops Falcone from a few stories that breaks one of his bones. Again, effective, but at a very high cost.
I think it might be interesting for you to write an article on Steve Ditko's, "The Question." A vigilante who supposedly adheres to Objectivism. Steve Ditko, himself, refers to himself as an Objecvtivist. I think this is a good article, though. It always makes philosophy more fun when there's something to relate to.
Not sure if this was mentioned, but Batman employed torture techniques on the Joker in the interrogation scene. The Joker provided him with information, but the information was incorrect. He purposely switched the locations of both Rachel and Dent.
That's right, I overlooked that somehow. Definitely would be a negative against Batman.
After seeing the movie, I realized the metaphors that Christopher Nolan employed with regards to modern times. The PATRIOT ACT- Batman using the sonar concept to eavesdrop on the citizens of Gotham. "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"-Batman tortures the Joker in order to get information. But one thing that I realized is there was an apparent contradiction from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight. In Batman Begins, Batman essentially lets Ras'Al Ghul die in the train at the end of the film. However, he saves the Joker from falling off the building at the end of The Dark Knight.
The dark knight is my all time favorite move, becouse of the specefect, becouse if the idea and the quality of actiers and movie itself. Can recomend to everyone who haven't seen or not sure if they want spent so much time watching it
iPhone 5 cases
Dark Knight is really a nice movie. It has good moral lessons too. This is a must-watch. You'll never regret this movie until the end. - Dr Naveed Fazlani