The best reason I’ve seen for Batman not killing has nothing to do with moral dilemmas.
He doesn’t kill because he fears that, given his messed up psychology, if he started killing, even just the extreme crazies like the Joker, he wouldn’t be able to stop there. It might open the floodgates to an all murder, all the time Batman.
They did this on Star Trek Enterprise, iirc.
They clone Tucker and give the clone rapid-aging abilities with alien technology. He demands to be recognized as an individual with rights rather than a repository for spare parts.
The point that most have been arguing most strongly is Go Ahead And Kill The Bad Guy. What you are arguing is essentially to continue to let the Joker live.
Thats so blatant you’d think there would be no debate, but the “clone” word confuses people. Then you have many different treatments of what a clone is, with some writers seeming to think they are souless machines or what have you.
There was more to it than “he was in love with a Cylon”, more like “if this one is good who’s to say others aren’t”. At first i thought he was retarded but i’ve come to side with Helo on this one, you can’t just exterminate their entire race when they are clearly not ALL evil.
Even more, this is basically the point of Batman Begins. The only REAL thing that separates Batman from Ras al Ghul is that he’s not willing to be executioner. That line that keeps him from killing is basically that same line that keeps him from literally destroying the entire city of Gotham.
It doesn’t really matter how much people in general believed in the devil then, it’s Hamlet personally whose beliefs are relevant. I haven’t read the whole play (or even seen the movie) in years, but after browsing the text online I had to agree with Big Hutch that Hamlet doesn’t seem to have serious doubts about his uncle’s guilt. Although if we grant the existence of the devil within Hamlet’s world then I suppose it could be true that Claudius is guilty and that the devil wants to push Hamlet into committing a revenge murder.
No, I’d go to the police and tell them I suspected my uncle was responsible for my father’s death. (I’d know better than to mention the ghost.) In the This American Life episode Big Hutch compares the situation to finding out your daughter has been raped and asks the interviewer (paraphrasing) “Wouldn’t you want to kill the guy who did it?” I probably would want to kill the murderer or rapist, but what I think and hope I’d actually do would be to turn things over to the police. This may be why Big Hutch is doing 120 years and I’m not.
Particularly how the show ended up and it turned out the Cylons weren’t quite as unified about their plan as it was originally thought, with three of the models breaking away from the other remaining three on the issue and in fact triggering a cylon civil war. Of course there was no way of knowing that at the time, and I think if I were in the reality of Galactica I would be all for wiping them out without hesitation.
It’s not a million miles away from “Hugh”, the episode of TNG where a Borg drone is discovered and the Enterprise’s crew essentially nurses him to a state of non-droneness and he becomes an individual. The crew originally plan to use encountering him as a perfect opportunity to attack the Borg collective and design an image that they know they will fail to be able to comprehend which will crash their collective mind (sounded a bit weak to me, but whatever). After getting to know the drone, who they name Hugh, and after he begins to assert his individuality and understand them as separate beings who don’t want to be assimilated, they begin to question destroying the collective with the typical “we’d be as bad as them”.
Except - no, you wouldn’t. The Borg are not a race, they are an amalgam of races in a state of being. The Borg forcibly add drones to the collective, and in every instance of the Trek universe where a drone is encountered that has left the collective they never want to go back. To stop the collective from continuing to essentially murder members of other races all over the galaxy (as assimilation is the death of the individual) isn’t the same as committing that act yourself.
To apply that reasoning to another similar analogy: the Nazis (hi Godwin!), an aggressive hegemonising power (just like the Borg) were using force to impose their will on Europe, including the industrialised murder and ethnic cleansing of millions in concentration camps, which we agree was wrong. However using force to stop them would make us as bad as them, so we shouldn’t have and let them continue conquering Europe.
See? It just doesn’t work. Committing an act that can be argued is justifiable to prevent someone else carrying out an act that cannot be justified is not morally wrong, and there is no dilemma there. Of course the point made upthread about the dilemma not being the audiences’ but the characters’ holds, and where would the Federation be without a hang-wringing sense of morality that they can have incessant quandaries over?
Except of course he has actively stopped others from killing the Joker as well.
Here’s a solution - kill Joker then kill Batman straight after. Problem solved.
It isn’t like the Navi tried to stop the hu-mons from mining anywhere. They just didn’t want to leave their home and let the hu-mons strip mine it.
Imagine aliens appear, and say there’s a vast deposit of unobtainium under New York City. The aliens say that their world is falling apart, and they really really need the unobtainium. So they ask if we could evacuate 8 million people from New York, and they’ll raze it to the ground and dig up the unobtainium, and leave a smoking crater behind. And in return they offer us some random trinkets.
Would we just give them New York out of the goodness of our hearts? I mean, we could build another one, right? And there are other cities the New Yorkers could move to, it’s not the only city on the planet.
So what’s the value of New York? I mean, they’d have to offer us goods and information worth hundreds of billions of dollars to make it worthwhile. And the aliens are clearly not offering us anything we’d value as much as New York. So we refuse, and the next phase of their negotitation is to tell us that they’re going to raze New York to the ground next week whether we move out or not, it’s our choice.
Hamlet’s opinion on whether the ghost could be the devil is made pretty clear, in act 2 scene ii, when he says:
The spirit that I have seen
May be the devil, and the devil hath power
To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps
Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
As he is very potent with such spirits,
Abuses me to damn me. I’ll have grounds
More relative than this: the play’s the thing
Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.
He later (act 3, scene ii) asks Horatio to:
Observe mine uncle. If his occulted guilt
Do not itself unkennel in one speech,
It is a damned ghost that we have seen,
And my imaginations are as foul
As Vulcan’s stithy.
Claudius’s reaction to the play makes him ‘take the ghost’s word for a thousand pounds,’ even though he was hoping that the reaction might be more than that - that perhaps his uncle might even confess.
And it is just over half way through the play that he first attempts to kill (who he thinks is) Claudius, just after the play within the play, which was a mere two or three days after the ghost told Hamlet he was murdered. It’s not like he sat on the information for years.
Hamlet was an intellectual for the time, and a privileged young man; he’d be more like you or me than a career criminal. But, of course, they didn’t have police back then, and it was the King he would have been accusing.
I could live with that. Have an editor at DC with enough balls to make a decision to permanently kill off both Bruce Wayne and the Joker and have Dick Grayson replace Wayne as Batman and enough tenure to make that decision stick for enough years that people can get used to it.
Their tech would more than pay for it, even if they are only users and not creators of their tech the chance to reverse engineer it would be worth NYC I think.
But as I pointed out earlier, he says this only after a speech in which he berates himself at some length for being a coward and not having killed Claudius yet. He doesn’t say that he’s been waiting because he’s not sure the ghost was telling the truth. Instead he indicates that he isn’t sure why he hasn’t done something already and is disgusted with himself for not yet having avenged his father.
*…Yet I,
A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak
Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause,
And can say nothing—no, not for a king,
Upon whose property and most dear life
A damned defeat was made. Am I a coward?
Who calls me “villain”? Breaks my pate across?
Plucks off my beard and blows it in my face?
Tweaks me by the nose? Gives me the lie i’ th’ throat
As deep as to the lungs? Who does me this?
Ha!
'Swounds, I should take it, for it cannot be
But I am pigeon-livered and lack gall
To make oppression bitter, or ere this
I should have fatted all the region kites
With this slave’s offal. Bloody, bawdy villain!
Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain!
O vengeance!
Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave,
That I, the son of a dear father murdered,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words
And fall a-cursing like a very drab,
A scullion! Fie upon ’t, foh!*
This doesn’t sound like someone who thinks he’s being prudent or who genuinely doubts the accuracy of his source. His remark a few lines later about how maybe the ghost was really the devil trying to trick him may explain why Hamlet decides to go forward with the “play’s the thing” scheme rather than running off to kill Claudius right away, but it doesn’t look to me like Hamlet ever claims that doubts about the ghost are what had prevented him from killing Claudius before the end of Act II.
I don’t see a contradiction there. He’s annoyed at himself for not going for revenge, but he hasn’t gone for revenge because he’s not sure it’s genuine. And it’s outright stated that he thinks the ghost might be the devil; not sure how you can claim he’s certain about the ghost.
But he doesn’t say that’s why he hasn’t gone for revenge yet. I’m not seeing anyplace in that whole scene where he attributes his previous hesitation to any doubts about the truth of what the ghost has told him. He doesn’t seem to understand himself why he hasn’t killed Claudius already.
You misunderstand my point. Hamlet does say maybe the ghost is actually the devil at the very end of Act II, but (unless I’ve skimmed over something relevant) there’s no indication that this suspicion had even crossed his mind prior to that moment. Something that only occurs to him at the end of Act II doesn’t retroactively explain his behavior up to that point. Just a few lines earlier he seems totally convinced that his father was murdered, that Claudius did it, and that the right thing for him (Hamlet) to do is avenge his father’s death by killing Claudius.
How do you know their technology would pay for it? Just because they can travel from Tau Ceti to Earth doesn’t mean they can transfer that technology to Earth, or that they can explain to us how it works. Even if they can cure cancer with their magic crystals that doesn’t mean they can teach us to make magic crystals. Are we going to trade New York for a few thousand magic cancer cures?
The point is, what exactly are the hu-mons offering the Na’vi in exchange for bulldozing their tree city? A school? That’s nice, but it’s not worth a city. Humans have some trade goods, but they aren’t offering to build the Na’vi a new better home, are they? If the Na’vi agreed to let the humans bulldoze their tree in return for whatever the humans gave them, would they be better off? Clearly not. It’s not just that the Na’vi are noble savages who have no need of crass material goods. It’s that after exchanging their home for a pile of trade goods they’d be worse off than before, or any realistic trade goods the human expedition could possibly have.
Why do the human have to bulldoze the tree? They could burrow under it.
But the end of that movie establishes that not actively killing is doesn’t mean he can’t let a death happen and refuse to save the Joker. There are plenty of times he actively prevents the Joker’s death.
Now you’re making assumptions that the analogy doesn’t support. You’re assuming the trade goods worth would be their tech that we can back engineer, or that we’d even get tech. But that is a flaw in the analogy, because nothing the humans were offering the Navi was anything as valuable to them as cancer cures or space drives or even Energizer batteries.