Okay I know Batman Begins isn't canon but When i think of the Batman vs Killing argument i'm reminded of his stand off in the train with Ras Al Ghul where he didn't kill him, but he didn't save him.
So are we saying that Inaction is as bad as Action?
P.s. I love Cody...
in a purely platonic way...
like a man loves a dog...
then gets arrested after a disgusted neighbor called the police.
Inaction is most definitely as bad as a willful act of murder. By saying that batman won't kill, but he doesn't ahve to save someone, that implies that he isn't morally culpable for their death. If he has the capability to save a life, then he is morally obligated to do so. If he can find another way to save the world without letting someone die, then he MUST do so because that is what heroes do. Heroes don't give up on even the most evil person because to do so would lower himself.
BTW
love you too, baby.
So soldiers are incapable of being heroes? They use lethal force as a rule.
After all, how heroic is it to give a Joker, Owlman or Lex Luthor a chance if they threaten countless lives with their actions?
What if saving the villain make it harder to stop them?
Say stopping a supervillain from committing genocide and using lethal force has a 50% chance of success while only using nonlethal force has a 25% chance of success. Is it heroic to use nonlethal force under those circumstances?
I think heroism is a broader concept than that very specific and narrow ideal. Certainly heroes in the real world don't use that definition.
After all, the current 'code of superheroes' is a product of the comics code and narrative necessity - killing off supervillains as the rule not the exception would cause a lot of problems - we wouldn't have iconic villains like the Joker or Lex Luthor because Superman would eyeball lazer them sooner or later.
Of course soldiers are heroes, and no, heroes in the real world don't use that definition, but when a character like Batman has been established as someone with a strict moral code where he doesn't kill, then he shouldn't kill.
Yeah, I know that in his first appearance he shot some crooks, but in the current incarnation, it has been established that Batman doesn't murder.
Example - Look at Identity Crisis, in that book, Alexander Luthor has messed with reality itself, caused the deaths of hundreds of people and Batman has a gun to his head ready to pull the trigger, but he doesn't because Wonder Woman stops him and tells him it's not worth it.
Should he have pulled the trigger? Well in the real world, yes he should have. But we're not dealing with the real world, now are we? We are dealing with an idealized world of superheroes and as such, they should act ideally and that means that all villains can be redeemed (except dark, evil gods like Darkseid that are the pure embodiment of death) and that heroes have to be ever hopeful that people can turn around and become good.
Even in Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" Batman snaps the Joker's neck leaving him paralyzed, but not murdering him. I think this might be too far for Batman, but that was the point of the comic. He still isn't willing to go so far as to kill a murderer because that would make himself a murderer. After all, who is he to decide the fate of a man's life? He might bring people in because they have committed a crime, but he has no right to take a life.
Again, of course in the real world soldiers are heroes and in the heart of battle, they have to kill and no one can begrudge someone of doing that. Superheroes don't operate on the same rules because they are fiction and are held to a different standard.
Arguing that Batman should kill because it is "realistic" or somehow moral is like saying that Batman should age because he's getting older and real people get older. These characters are idealized fiction - they aren't supposed to reflect upon what is, but on what should be.
