In this rather silly Cafe Society thread about the relative assholishness of Batman and Psych’s Shawn Spencer, Greg Charles made the following observation:
(Bolding mine.)
Does this really make Batman a “mass murderer”? Surely not from a legal standpoint, but what about morally and ethically?
Specifically, if one is in possession of unique knowledge or technology that could potentially make the world safer and prevent certain types of death or injury, what is that person’s obligation to share it with the rest of the world?
AFAIC, that person has the responsibility to share it with the public. It is not tantamount to murder, but it is extremely unethical to profit from the suffering of others.
I protest your calling my thread rather silly. It’s extraordinarily silly.
That aside, Greg’s point is a good one. Even if Batman were an ordinary citizen, I would say he should at least release such technology. But as someone whose self-appointed duty is to protect innocent lives, his failure to do so is far, far worse. Any downside (my technology might be used by criminals!) is surely outweighed by the many lives that he could save.
Where do you draw the line, though? I spend money on, say, internet service that could be saving some African baby’s life. Do I murder an African baby every month when I pay the bill? (Answer: no, I murder the African baby for fun and then pay the bill so I don’t get my Netflix Watch Instantly cut off.)
But it wouldn’t cost Wayne money to release the tech that allows the Batmobile to drive itself. It would MAKE him money. And saving lives is his supposed metier.
No. As far as I’m concerned, you’re only a murderer for failing to take someone out of harm’s way if it’s your fault they were in harm’s way in the first place. If Batman didn’t exist, the citizens of Gotham still wouldn’t have the car he developed (bankrolled?).
You have not established that Batman has secret technology that he is not selling or sharing. For all you know, the Batmobile may simply be manufactured and programmed from existing technology, with the lack of production models being an issue of cost.
Cost does seem a likely issue, he is a millionaire after all.
But leaving aside practicality, deliberate inaction when it would save a life for little or no effort is morally indefensible as far as Im concerned, unless there is some ‘wider issue’ that can be argued.
What if the technology in question would be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands? What if the technology, if available, could easily be adapted by a criminally insane villain into weapons of mass destruction?
What if you’re a Starship captain, and you have to withhold life-saving technology, or otherwise refuse to save lives, in order to obey the Prime Directive?
