A superhero, according to the Google dictionary is “a benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers, such as Superman.” Although there are many superheroes that fit this description, there are none so iconic as Batman and Superman. While Batman’s success lies in his imperfect means of stopping crime, his skirting from the law marks him as ineligible from the category of superhero.
Superman’s comic first became popular in the 1940s during World War II [1]. During this time, people in America were looking for something or someone to give them hope. They needed a god-like figure to look up to. If Superman was to symbolize America during the war, he needed to be the good guy fighting against evil, and he had to be unstoppable. His perfection might be boring in many modern day eyes, but at the time of his peak popularity, Superman was the perfect moral icon; a symbol that the Allies could overcome the evil of the Nazi empire.
Batman, on the other hand, is constantly “crossing the fine line between hero and vigilante” [2]. He abides by the rule of “the greatest good for the greatest number,” by repeatedly performing immoral deeds such as tapping phone wires and letting others suffer in order to save Gotham. Regardless of the outcome, any individual deed viewed as wrong is still immoral according to Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” [3]. This means that even if killing one man saves a thousand men, murder itself is an still immoral action that should not be taken. Morality, according to Kant, is unconditional, and although Batman always has good intentions, his actions are wrong.
The question of whether Superman or Batman is the better superhero then, is not even applicable. The real question should be, if Batman can even be considered a superhero. If his actions, according to Kant, are immoral, can Batman still be considered benevolent? While Superman, out of necessity for time, might be too perfect and boring, he can at least be considered the “good guy.” Batman, however entertaining, does not fit the description of a superhero because his indiscretions disqualify him from the benevolent crime-fighter that he portrays.
[1]: “Superman and the War Years.” Superman Homepage. <http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/supes-war>. Web.
[2]: “The Dark Night: Plot Summary.” IMDB. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/ plotsummary>. Web.
[3]: Guthrie, Shandon L. Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy Journal, Volume II Issue 7. <http://sguthrie.net/kant.htm>. Web.
Wow very well written post
ReplyDeleteI had a long reply but google deleted it...wow
ReplyDeleteSuperheroes or vigilantes
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r_mkJMPZWE
While what you are saying about Batman being a vigilante is true this is true of all superheroes. Superman is just less on the hook for his vigalente activites because he is so powerful there is no way to catch or stop him. Spiderman is a great example of this He fits in with your Superhero with superhuman powers that is stopping crime while still skirting the law. There is really no line to skirt between vigilante and hero. The only way for batman to get around this would be to join the police force but then he would be limited to police regulation equipment. Thus he stays as a vigilante following the Utilitarianism view of the greatest good for the greatest number. He may be viewed as a vigilante but he is doing more for the city then he could if he limited himself to what he could do with the police force.
The same vigilante behavior is seen in the Incredibles When Mr. Incredible and Freeze are stopping a robbery and get caught by the cops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9reKxtQQge4
All of the criminals are apprehended and no one is hurt so how is this bad? Mr. Incredible is similar to superman in he has super strength he just lacks the super speed which helps superman get away with everything. So it is not that superman is not a vigilante he is just very good at it. The problem with being a vigilante only occurs when you are not trained well enough and you get yourself or others killed.
“Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.” Even though I do not see where the actions of any of these supeheros (including batman) are harmful according to Kant the intention is actually what matters, so your argument against Batman is sophistic.