You are strongly arguing elsewhere that letting someone die isn’t a particularly significant moral choice… at least, it is so much less a moral choice than killing them that even comparing the two is an obnoxious fallacy.
But you are also arguing that letting someone live who will later kill people is evil.
I am bewildered by how these could both be true. If it’s evil to let the Joker live, why isn’t it just as evil to not evacuate a city in the path of an oncoming flood? It seems in both cases, it’s a choice not to intervene in order to prevent future deaths that I don’t cause.
You are strongly arguing elsewhere that letting someone die isn’t a particularly significant moral choice… at least, it is so much less a moral choice than killing them that even comparing the two is an obnoxious fallacy.
I have said something similar. Substitute “it is so much less a moral choice” with “it is an entirely different moral choice and equivocation is unacceptable”. I wouldn’t rule out a (contrived) scenario where the former was a more significant moral act. They just aren’t the same thing.
But you are also arguing that letting someone live who will later kill people is evil.
In the particular circumstances under consideration, yes. So assume all the work done to capture or thwart the supervillian without killing them exceeds the work that would have to be done to just shoot them. The actors in play must also be supervillians and superheroes respectively—complete with makeup and flamboyant malicious schemes. Further assume that ‘evil’ means ‘sub par moral act’ - it is a sign bit not a measure of degree of ‘badness’.
The above should be taken to indicate that I have not expressed a fully general claim about “letting someone live who will later kill people is evil”. I’ve made a claim about the preferred moral behavior of superheroes with respect to supervillians.
I am bewildered by how these could both be true. If it’s evil to let the Joker live, why isn’t it just as evil to not evacuate a city in the path of an oncoming flood? It seems in both cases, it’s a choice not to intervene in order to prevent future deaths that I don’t cause.
I am, all else being equal, in favor of evacuations. I would need to know more details about the circumstances and what abilities and responsibilities the individual you are judging has before I contributed any moralizing myself. (If it was the mayor of the city, for example, and he kept it all hushed up when he could have evactuated easily then he’s probably more evil than the psychopath that created the flood.)
Apart from that I find Batman’s morality rather reprehensible. In particular letting super-villains live to kill another day is evil.
I agree in general (the movie would have been over quicker if someone had just shot the joker), but its more complex in the context of the dark knight as its about restoring trust in the rule of law in Gotham and Batman dispensing vigilante justice diminishes that, so there may be a net utility loss.
Why do you like “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you” so much? Sounds like him just rationalising his way around his no killing rule, which depends on a false action/inaction distinction.
Why do you like “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you” so much?
For a start because it is slightly less insane than actively saving the supervillians.
Sounds like him just rationalising his way around his no killing rule, which depends on a false action/inaction distinction.
I reject your claim. There is a difference between killing and not saving. One of the most obvious differences is one that you seem to have forgotten since your first paragraph:
but its more complex in the context of the dark knight as its about restoring trust in the rule of law in Gotham and Batman dispensing vigilante justice diminishes that, so there may be a net utility loss.
Not making superhero-level interventions to save supervillains is not vigilante justice. As such the supposed “net utility loss” from vigilante justice does not occur. The same applies to many (albeit not quite all) of the ethical considerations with respect to murder. (I refer to things like “Don’t murder even when you think it is the best thing to do because you are likely to incorrectly calculate probabilities of getting caught, etc.)
Batman doesn’t have a “you have to save everyone” rule. He does have a ‘no killing’ rule. It’s easy to tell the difference between the two decisions. Anyone claiming that not saving someone is the same as murdering them is just wrong.
I also declare, among other things, that going to Africa and hunting Africans with a sniper rifle is ethically distinguishable to not donating to charities that will save the same lives. It would be fair to say that one of the reasons that the quote appeals so much is that it rejects the obnoxious “not saving is murder” fallacy that springs up around here all too often.
(I also declare, among other things, that going to Africa and hunting Africans with a sniper rifle is ethically distinguishable to not donating to charities that will save the same lives.)
I know that this is one of those questions that can take a long answer, so feel free to answer in summary form. But why do you think that?
What if we sold African hunting licenses for enough money that for each victim, enough money would be raised for a charity that would save two African children’s lives?
What if we sold African hunting licenses for enough money that for each victim, enough money would be raised for a charity that would save two African children’s lives?
I don’t support your right-to-hunt-Africans initiative.
It is very presumptuous of you to assume that I have an intiative like this. What I was really asking you is if there is any utilons offset that would change your mind—but I guess that really just amounts to asking if you are a utilitarian.
What I was really asking you is if there is any utilons offset that would change your mind—but I guess that really just amounts to asking if you are a utilitarian.
“Utilitarian” is a misleading word. In that context you mean consequentialist—those are the ones that care about maximising utilities.
My favorite morality quote from that series (in this case, from Batman Begins) is:
Apart from that I find Batman’s morality rather reprehensible. In particular letting super-villains live to kill another day is evil.
I am… confused.
You are strongly arguing elsewhere that letting someone die isn’t a particularly significant moral choice… at least, it is so much less a moral choice than killing them that even comparing the two is an obnoxious fallacy.
But you are also arguing that letting someone live who will later kill people is evil.
I am bewildered by how these could both be true. If it’s evil to let the Joker live, why isn’t it just as evil to not evacuate a city in the path of an oncoming flood? It seems in both cases, it’s a choice not to intervene in order to prevent future deaths that I don’t cause.
I have said something similar. Substitute “it is so much less a moral choice” with “it is an entirely different moral choice and equivocation is unacceptable”. I wouldn’t rule out a (contrived) scenario where the former was a more significant moral act. They just aren’t the same thing.
In the particular circumstances under consideration, yes. So assume all the work done to capture or thwart the supervillian without killing them exceeds the work that would have to be done to just shoot them. The actors in play must also be supervillians and superheroes respectively—complete with makeup and flamboyant malicious schemes. Further assume that ‘evil’ means ‘sub par moral act’ - it is a sign bit not a measure of degree of ‘badness’.
The above should be taken to indicate that I have not expressed a fully general claim about “letting someone live who will later kill people is evil”. I’ve made a claim about the preferred moral behavior of superheroes with respect to supervillians.
I am, all else being equal, in favor of evacuations. I would need to know more details about the circumstances and what abilities and responsibilities the individual you are judging has before I contributed any moralizing myself. (If it was the mayor of the city, for example, and he kept it all hushed up when he could have evactuated easily then he’s probably more evil than the psychopath that created the flood.)
OK, thanks for clarifying.
I agree in general (the movie would have been over quicker if someone had just shot the joker), but its more complex in the context of the dark knight as its about restoring trust in the rule of law in Gotham and Batman dispensing vigilante justice diminishes that, so there may be a net utility loss.
Why do you like “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you” so much? Sounds like him just rationalising his way around his no killing rule, which depends on a false action/inaction distinction.
For a start because it is slightly less insane than actively saving the supervillians.
I reject your claim. There is a difference between killing and not saving. One of the most obvious differences is one that you seem to have forgotten since your first paragraph:
Not making superhero-level interventions to save supervillains is not vigilante justice. As such the supposed “net utility loss” from vigilante justice does not occur. The same applies to many (albeit not quite all) of the ethical considerations with respect to murder. (I refer to things like “Don’t murder even when you think it is the best thing to do because you are likely to incorrectly calculate probabilities of getting caught, etc.)
Batman doesn’t have a “you have to save everyone” rule. He does have a ‘no killing’ rule. It’s easy to tell the difference between the two decisions. Anyone claiming that not saving someone is the same as murdering them is just wrong.
I also declare, among other things, that going to Africa and hunting Africans with a sniper rifle is ethically distinguishable to not donating to charities that will save the same lives. It would be fair to say that one of the reasons that the quote appeals so much is that it rejects the obnoxious “not saving is murder” fallacy that springs up around here all too often.
I know that this is one of those questions that can take a long answer, so feel free to answer in summary form. But why do you think that?
I might expand later but briefly: Because I significantly negatively value Africans being hunted for sport. I’m arbitrary like that.
What if we sold African hunting licenses for enough money that for each victim, enough money would be raised for a charity that would save two African children’s lives?
I don’t support your right-to-hunt-Africans initiative.
It is very presumptuous of you to assume that I have an intiative like this. What I was really asking you is if there is any utilons offset that would change your mind—but I guess that really just amounts to asking if you are a utilitarian.
“Utilitarian” is a misleading word. In that context you mean consequentialist—those are the ones that care about maximising utilities.