Hey Fancy People!
Welcome to That Sci-Fi Show, I'm Jay and today we talk about the philosophy of Batman and
Robin!
No, not that one.
Like, just in general.
That's better.
Now roll the bump.
Today's video is brought to you by our patrons on Patreon.
You can see the names of those fancy people at the end of this video and in the description
below, but let's talk Batman.
More on Patreon at the end of the video.
So Batman, as we've discussed many times before, is a superhero from DC Comics.
Artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger created The Dark Knight who debuted in Detective Comics
#27 in 1939.
The Caped Crusader is, in reality, Bruce Wayne, Gotham City billionaire, philanthropist, and
all-around handsome Randian hero.
After witnessing the tragic killing of his parents (Dr. Thomas Wayne and MARTHA!)
Batman trains himself (both physically and mentally) and then makes the totally logical
decision to doll out street justice and fight petty crime while dressed as a bat, you know,
like you do.
Robin, on the other hand, could refer to multiple characters within the continuity of DC Comics
proper.
Bob Kane, Bill Finger, and this time, Jerry Robinson, created the original Robin who made
his first appearance in Detective Comics #38 in 1940.
The Boy Wonder's backstory shared a lot in common with Batsy.
Dick Grayson (an 8-year-old acrobat) looses his family when they're murdered by a mobster
that had been extorting money from the circus where they worked.
John and Mary Grayson (of The Flying Graysons) were unaware that their trapeze equipment
had been sabotaged and as a result, they fell to their deaths.
After Batman investigated the murder, with the help of young Dick Grayson, he used his
public identity as Bruce Wayne to gain custody of the young kid.
Together, Batman and Robin (often called The Dynamic Duo or The Caped Crusaders) make a
formidable team...
but... is it ethical?
Specifically, is it ethical for Batman to train an orphan child to put his life on the
line every night to fight crime in a colorful costume?
Today, we're turning to Batman and Philosophy - The Dark Knight of the Soul for some answers.
Those answers are found in chapter two, written by James DiGiovanna (which I'm sure I didn't
pronounce correctly but I'm just gonna run with it).
Side note, you'll find an affiliate link below where you can get your own copy of this book
and help the channel a bit while doing so.
Also, shout out to co-editor and chapter one author Mark D. White who is a friend of the
show (and by friend, I mean he puts up with me on Twitter... which is no easy task...
just ask Scott).
So.
Batman, Robin and Ethics.
Is it ethical for Batman to train young boys to be Robin and then send them out to fight
dangerous criminals?
To answer that, we need to understand ethics - the branch of knowledge that deals with
moral principles.
In the book, DiGiovanna asks us to suppose that we found an orphan child on the streets.
What are the morally acceptable actions that you could take in that situation?
You could turn the child over to social services.
You could take the child into your home and raise him as your own.
Not many people would think that training him in martial arts and sending him out to
fight would be a morally acceptable answer.
Yet historically, DiGiovanna points out, Ancient Spartans, Medieval Royalty and New Guinean
warriors all exposed young boys to potentially lethal danger in the name of helping them
grow into young adults.
Medieval Royalty even dressed the young boys up in capes and symbols... and, frankly, that's
very Batman-like behavior.
"But just because people have done things historically, that doesn't mean these actions
are ethical!"
I hear you yelling at your phone while you drink your Monster Energy Drink and briefly
consider watching a different video.
That's right, I CAN see you Steve!
That is correct, however.
An action isn't automatically ethical just because it's traditional.
So... how do we judge what is... and what is not, ethical?
Well, ethics, DiGiovanna says, COULD be defined as the attempt to live by a set of duties,
where it's necessary to follow some of these rules or act on some of these duties regardless
of the consequences, simply because the duty itself is most important.
This is called deontological ethics, from the greek word deon, meaning "duty".
Regular viewers of the show will recognize the concept of deontology from previous videos
like this one about Spiderman.
In the eyes of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the most important duties must be universal
and categorical, meaning without exception.
In other words, you can't pick and choose.
For example, if you believe there's an important ethical duty not to tell lies, as many people
do, then you can't cherry pick certain times when lying is okay.
If never telling a lie is an important ethical duty then there are no exceptions.
DiGiovanna asks us to imagine that Batman has been captured by The Joker.
If The Joker asks where Robin is, then Batman can refuse to answer or dodge the question
but he cannot lie about Robin's location, even if it leads the Joker into a trap and
therefore saves time, money and lives.
If the duty to not lie is universal then it applies to everyone, including The Batman.
If it's categorical, then it applies to all situations, all the time, including this one.
To quote Kant directly, "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it become a universal law."
What Kant is saying here, is that to find out if a given act is ethical we must ask
ourselves "What if everyone always acted this way, all the time".
In our example, we ask "What if everyone lied?".
To put it mildly that would be bad and so lying must be bad, regardless of whether or
not the consequences are good and bad.
Kant argues that if your maxim doesn't universalize this way, then it cannot be ethical.
So... is training a young Robin ethical?
Well, what if everyone trained a young boy to fight crime in a costume?
Sounds like chaos and a dangerous situation for everyone, therefore under deontological
ethics Batman has acted unethically in training Robin.
"But that's stupid, Jay!" you say as you get Cheetos dust all over the place.
Well, hang on Steve.
DiGiovanna is quick to point out that maxims are rarely this specific.
If Batman himself were to attempt this same exercise then he might come up with "Do anything
you can to help orphans" and that sounds a lot more reasonable and much more universal.
But what about "Do anything you can to help orphans while protecting their personal safety"?
That seems reasonable and universal and if you've ever heard of Jason Todd then you know
that Batman doesn't always succeed in the safely department.
I think there's a good case to conclude that, according to deontological ethics, training
Robin is, in fact, unethical.
However, it's far, far from the only way to look at this situation.
Take a moment to do the ethical thing and click the like button and we'll move on to
consequentialist ethics.
Up until this point we've been considering the ethics of an action without regard to
it's consequences but in consequentialist ethics, it's considered to be the most important
part.
Consequentialism holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for
any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill would argue that an action is
good if it's consequences are good.
So what is utilitarianism - no one who's watched my content ever asked because I've talked
about it way too much.
Well, Utilitarianism states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility (basically
the well-being of sentient entities).
Jeremy Bentham described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action,
minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action.
So do the consequences of training Robin and sending him out to fight crime result in more
good than it does harm?
This is more complicated than it sounds becuase we have to consider every variable:
How does it effect Robin physically and mentally?
How does it effect the people of Gotham?
Or the crime rate? or the cost of repairs?
The list goes on and on.
This could be debated indefinitely from either side, but if you're one of those people that
believes that the very existence of Batman and Robin leads to the existence of The Joker
and the rest of Batman's rouges gallery... well, you're very likely to believe that not
only is training Robin unethical but being Batman is also unethical.
On the other hand, if you believe that Batman saves the city (and sometimes) even the whole
world then you're much more likely to decide that being Batman and training Robin aren't
just ethical but absolutly necessary.
Let's talk about it in the comments section below.
How do you think we should judge Batman's decision to create Robin?
Should we judge Batman based on the consequences of his actions?
Or should we judge him based on the actions themselves?
Join me here in a couple days for part two where we explore the concept of virtue ethics
and discuss the idea that sometimes even the best of intentions can produce a morally unethical
outcome!
Doesn't that sound fun.
But you know what is fun?
Hitting the like button!
Give it a try, it's a blast.
Now, as promised, let's talk Patreon.
As a test, we rolled out two levels of support ($1 and $5) and we were delighted to get 8
pledges totaling $25 a month.
The $1 a month pledge gets a one time free gift!
Something mailed to your house that you can actually hold in your hand.
Meanwhile, the $5 pledge gets you a small lootcrate style box sent to your home once
a month.
You still have until Monday to pledge and get rewards for this month!
Based on the success of this small test run, we'll decided to expand and we'll be adding
two more levels of support for next month, both even bigger versions of the $5 level.
So, if you can afford it, join us on Patreon.
If not, that's okay.
Share the videos, click the like button and enjoy the channel's Discord server free of
charge.
Link in the description below, I will see you there personally.
This has been a long one but that's all I have for you guys today.
Until next time, I'm still Jay Parks.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét