Does Batman's "no killing" stance have any scientific merit?

[stebbinsd]

In comic book canon (not counting movies or TV shows), Batman's most defining character trait is his absolute refusal to kill under any circumstances. He not only refuses to kill in self-defense, but he even refuses to kill to protect his adoptive children! The most famous example of that has got to be Jason Todd, the main antagonist of the movie "Batman: Under the Red Hood."

In the rare event Batman is forced to explain his reasoning behind this logic, he'll usually that the reason is because he feels that, once he allows himself that liberty, even in circumstances where it might be justified in hindsight (such as self-defense), he'll just become part of the same problem that he's trying to stop.

But I honestly just don't see the logic.

That might be fine, if it were just Batman's own point of view and it were never anything beyond that. For example, in The Dark Knight, the Joker postulates that, when people are put in peril, they will always commit horrible atrocities to save themselves. But that's clearly isn't the movie's point of view; it's clearly just The Joker's tainted view on the world. The movie repeatedly proves him wrong, the biggest example of which is when the two ships are about to sink, and the inhabitants of those ships actually help each other out rather than kill each other.

But for Batman's absolute refusal to kill, the stories where this stance is tested consistently affirm Batman's ideals. Like, for example, in "Batman: Under the Red Hood." As this guy explains at 15:52 of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CG1bapLTHE
"This story validates Batman's ideals by having Jason try to shoot him ... killing is the easy thing to do, and Jason's proven that; he's killed a lot, now, and as soon as things don't go his way, he aims his gun at his old mentor and friend, instead of the psychopath who was really responsible for his death. Jason wanted to control crime, but he's lost it; he's almost as whacked out as the Joker."

The DC universe seems to take the stance that killing, even justifiable killing, has a similar effect on your brain as cannibalism. Cannibalism has been scientifically proven in the real world to slowly rot away the cannibal's brain. If you do it enough, you slowly become mentally unstable and even a psychopath. This is all 100% scientifically documented.

But the DC universe not only takes a similar stance on killing, but actually takes it one step further. If Batman's philosophy is to be believed, killing has an immediate effect on one's psyche, not a gradual effect. The minute Batman takes a life - just one life - for any reason, even in the most justified of circumstances, then his "psychopath" switch has been flipped, and it's only a matter of time before he goes on mass killing sprees for its own sake, just to satisfy his own insatiable bloodlust, much like the comic book equivalent of The Mask (not to be confused with the film adaptation starring Jim Carey).

If this were scientifically sound, then how do you explain the millions of people in the real world who kill in self-defense (e.g. because a burglar is breaking into his home, or because he's a soldier in a war), and then go on to commit precisely zero murders from that point on for the rest of their lives?

Sure, this is a comic book world, so you may argue that we can suspend out disbelief. But this isn't just escapism. The Batman comics clearly want to teach a moral lesson with these types of stories. We're meant to take Batman's refusal to kill to heart, and strive to achieve this ideal in our daily lives to the greatest extent practicable.

This isn't like Power Rangers, which is 100% escapism. We don't have to worry about the moral implications of killing people because the rangers only fight monsters, and the Rangers are rarely put in a position where they have to compromise their morals. This is in stark contrast to Super Sentai, who often do have to do morally ambiguous things, like in this episode where the Zyurangers are forced to kill an innocent victim of Bandora's deception for the greater good: http://www.jatoku.com/kyoryu-sentai-...rranean-beast/

But Batman's refusal to kill is supposed to be a moral lesson we should all take to heart ... which means that, if it doesn't hold up to logical or scientific scrutiny, it falls flat on its face.

[millernumber1]

Nice post, but honestly, the real reason Batman doesn't kill is because he's a nearly 80 year old character who needs ongoing villains for stories to continue to be compelling. Otherwise you either have faceless goon one million, or Joker rip off number 3 (credit for this argument to Shamus Young: https://shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27382)

[Assam]

This isn't like Power Rangers, which is 100% escapism. We don't have to worry about the moral implications of killing people because the rangers only fight monsters, and the Rangers are rarely put in a position where they have to compromise their morals. This is in stark contrast to Super Sentai, who often do have to do morally ambiguous things, like in this episode where the Zyurangers are forced to kill an innocent victim of Bandora's deception for the greater good: http://www.jatoku.com/kyoryu-sentai-...rranean-beast/

Power Rangers, at least in its good seasons, is most certainly not "100% escapism". Rangers have quite often across seasons been put in positions where their morals are challenged, the possibility of having to kill another human has come up on several occasions with some characters genuinely considering it, there have been instances that show not all monsters in this setting are evil and just want to be left alone and there's even been an episode (in a season where the 'monsters' were just mutated humans and so they were captured, not killed) where the main plot was the team having to stop one of its members from killing in their rage.

I know this isn't the main point of this thread, but I don't like people selling Power Rangers short.

[stebbinsd]

Nice post, but honestly, the real reason Batman doesn't kill is because he's a nearly 80 year old character who needs ongoing villains for stories to continue to be compelling. Otherwise you either have faceless goon one million, or Joker rip off number 3 (credit for this argument to Shamus Young: https://shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27382)

That may be the production reason for this plot point. But the in-universe reason Batman doesn't kill is because he believes doing so would turn him into a psychopath ... and the stories repeatedly affirm that ideal.

If the writers wanted to, they could just find ways to bring villains back to life or create contrived ways that the villains survive Batman's killings.

[stebbinsd]

I know this isn't the main point of this thread, but I don't like people selling Power Rangers short.

I'm not selling Power Rangers short. I'm a huge fan of RPM specifically because of its dark themes and tones. Show a non-fan the very first episode of RPM ("The Road to Corinth"), and he'll come out the other side saying "Wait a minute ... when did Power Rangers start juicing?!"

Also, that episode you're talking about (which happened during the "Time Force" season) still came down fairly hard on the belief that the mutant didn't deserve death. The story was clearly on the green ranger's side and clearly held that Eric (the quantum ranger) was acting out of pure rage and racism rather than justice. So it hardly counts as a rebuttal to my OP.

[Caivu]

The DC universe seems to take the stance that killing, even justifiable killing, has a similar effect on your brain as cannibalism. Cannibalism has been scientifically proven in the real world to slowly rot away the cannibal's brain. If you do it enough, you slowly become mentally unstable and even a psychopath. This is all 100% scientifically documented.

Got sources for that? I highly doubt that's due to cannibalism itself. That sounds more to do with consuming prions or something.

If this were scientifically sound, then how do you explain the millions of people in the real world who kill in self-defense (e.g. because a burglar is breaking into his home, or because he's a soldier in a war), and then go on to commit precisely zero murders from that point on for the rest of their lives?

Easy: it's not scientifically sound, at least not as a hard rule. Many people who kill for justified reasons (self-defense, police, military) don't develop any significant psychological damage from it. Certainly some do, but not all. And cases where such killing flips some metaphorical bloodlust switch in a person's head are even more uncommon.

[stebbinsd]

Got sources for that? I highly doubt that's due to cannibalism itself. That sounds more to do with consuming prions or something.

Prions are an inevitable part of a cannibal diet, though. The prions are caused by the cannibalism.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/side-ef...ase-and-417622

When A is the cause of B, and then B is the cause of C, then that still means that A is the cause of C. Here, the cannibalism leads to brain deterioration. I don't care how many stages you shove in between. The cannibalism starts the domino effect (however long that line of dominoes might be) that ultimately leads to brain deterioration.

Easy: it's not scientifically sound, at least not as a hard rule. Many people who kill for justified reasons (self-defense, police, military) don't develop any significant psychological damage from it. Certainly some do, but not all. And cases where such killing flips some metaphorical bloodlust switch in a person's head are even more uncommon.

In that case, why should we be invested in these stories? Why should we see Batman as the good guy in stories where his refusal to kill is put to the test? If he is merely the lesser of two evils compared to the Joker, then shouldn't that make Jason Todd (aka Red Hood) the real good guy? Or hell, maybe even Ra's al Ghul, since he's even better than Red Hood because he refuses to be party to the crimes he wants to stop, but he's still more proactive than Batman and sees himself as being able to kill only those who deserve it without going all "Big Head" on us.

If Batman's absolute philosophy doesn't hold up absolutely, then we should absolutely not get behind him and root for him. We need to find another hero to get behind.

An absolute philosophy has to hold up absolutely in order for the audience to get behind it.

[Caivu]

Prions are an inevitable part of a cannibal diet, though. The prions are caused by the cannibalism.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/side-ef...ase-and-417622

From that article:

"Eating human flesh isn't always bad for us, especially if it lacks prions, but doing so carries an exceptionally high risk that's not worth sinking your teeth into."

It's a high risk for sure, but not an absolutely inevitable one.

[millernumber1]

That may be the production reason for this plot point. But the in-universe reason Batman doesn't kill is because he believes doing so would turn him into a psychopath ... and the stories repeatedly affirm that ideal.

If the writers wanted to, they could just find ways to bring villains back to life or create contrived ways that the villains survive Batman's killings.

That is one reason that writers have put up for consideration (as Young points out in his article). The one I find most compelling is a pragmatic one - if Batman kills, then the GCPD can no longer ignore his lawbreaking.

Every time you bring someone back to life, you weaken the impact of death. So that is just another version of the ripoff problem.

[Assam]

Show a non-fan the very first episode of RPM ("The Road to Corinth"), and he'll come out the other side saying "Wait a minute ... when did Power Rangers start juicing?!"

I've actually done that a couple times and I do generally get pretty great reactions.

Also, that episode you're talking about (which happened during the "Time Force" season) still came down fairly hard on the belief that the mutant didn't deserve death. The story was clearly on the green ranger's side and clearly held that Eric (the quantum ranger) was acting out of pure rage and racism rather than justice. So it hardly counts as a rebuttal to my OP.

I'm aware of the season's name, Time Force actually being my favorite season. And that wasn't the episode I was talking about. I was referring to "Jen's Revenge". Unlike Eric in the episode you're referring to, Jen was not portrayed as the villain of the story and it was simply a matter of the others not wanting her to cross a line, much like Batman.

[Katana500]

Its not Batman's or Batgirl's or any other Heroes Job to kill the villains. Real question is why the Judicial System in Gotham is so inefficient. The real answer is probably so Batman doesn't end up like Punisher with no good villians cause they all end up dead.

[stebbinsd]

Real question is why the Judicial System in Gotham is so inefficient.

There's actually a perfectly valid explanation for that if DC Comics ever wanted to go with it:

The Joker is deranged. The death penalty for insane people is unconstitutional.

DC writers could easily give us that explanation if they wanted to for why the Joker or many others in Batman's rogues gallery can't be executed lawfully.

But no, DC writers just expect us to treat The Joker's non-execution as just "one of those conceits."

It's like this video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaHVDE7iX3k ... there's no logical explanation for any of these things. They're just things that you have to accept in order to enjoy this particular genre of television.

Gotham's non-death-penalty policy is presented by DC writers in a similar light, even though there's a perfectly explanation for it if they ever wanted to use it.

[Carabas]

That may be the production reason for this plot point. But the in-universe reason Batman doesn't kill is because he believes doing so would turn him into a psychopath ... and the stories repeatedly affirm that ideal.

The in-universe reason varies from writer to writer, but generally boils down to it being because his parents were murdered.

As for this 'one kill no matter how justified and you're a bloodthirsty psychopath forever' nonsense? It's nonsense and has no relation to reality and certainly not to science.
Also, this mentally unstable version of Batman already is a psychopath, whether or not he kills.

The Joker is deranged. The death penalty for insane people is unconstitutional.

The Joker has been ruled to not fit the definition of legal insanity (and really, he doesn't. He knows perfectly well that what he does is evil) and actually was sentenced to death. Of course Batman had to go and save him by proving he was innocent of this one particular murder.

[Chubistian]

In comic book canon (not counting movies or TV shows), Batman's most defining character trait is his absolute refusal to kill under any circumstances. He not only refuses to kill in self-defense, but he even refuses to kill to protect his adoptive children! The most famous example of that has got to be Jason Todd, the main antagonist of the movie "Batman: Under the Red Hood."

It wasn't like that, when Batman found Jason, he was already dead. If Batman had killed the Joker, it wouldn't have been to protect Jason, but just to get revenge. It wasn't a case where killing was neccesary in order to save someone.

The DC universe seems to take the stance that killing, even justifiable killing, has a similar effect on your brain as cannibalism. Cannibalism has been scientifically proven in the real world to slowly rot away the cannibal's brain. If you do it enough, you slowly become mentally unstable and even a psychopath. This is all 100% scientifically documented.

Green Arrow (Oliver Queen) has had to kill a lot of times for different reasons and DC never made a case of him becoming more and more tempted to kill. That Batman believes that once he kills one of his rogues he won't stop with him is his opinion, not an stance that DC made over people killing

Anyways, in-universe, Batman doesn't have just one reason not to kill, it will heavily depend on the writer and the age. Just to name a few reasons that come to mind:

-He think once he starts he won't stop
-He feels that if he kills Joker, Gotham would just send him someone worse
-Having felt the pain of losing his most beloved people, he knows the pain death brings. Life is the most sacred thing and must be protected, no matter who's life it's
-Bruce Wayne had to die in order to give birth to Batman. Death becomes a choice, and someone who is already "dead" (not literally) doesn't take that choice from anyone
-Batman is actually a force that operates cooperating and supported by the legal system and the police. He has no permission, nor a desire, to murder criminals.

Still, Batman has been shown to being able to broke his rule in order to save someone (DK Returns-comic-, when he shot a mutant to protect a little child, though it's not 100%confirmed that the mutant died), Final Crisis (to stop Darkseid), and other times where he has been close to doing so because he's blinded by rage or doubting that the legal system will make actual justice (HUSH, Ten Nights of the Beast)

[Ascended]

-He think once he starts he won't stop
-He feels that if he kills Joker, Gotham would just send him someone worse
-Having felt the pain of losing his most beloved people, he knows the pain death brings. Life is the most sacred thing and must be protected, no matter who's life it's
-Bruce Wayne had to die in order to give birth to Batman. Death becomes a choice, and someone who is already "dead" (not literally) doesn't take that choice from anyone
-Batman is actually a force that operates cooperating and supported by the legal system and the police. He has no permission, nor a desire, to murder criminals.

All of this.

Bruce's issues with killing are a personal psychosis, not a company-wide mandate or philosophy. It's not that taking a life instantly turns you into a serial killer, it's that Bruce believes he wouldn't be able to stop himself if he started, and his fears that the universe would punish him if he did. Batman is already a monster, but he's a monster aimed in a very careful way, and any deviation might unleash him in the wrong direction and turn him into the same kind of villain he fights against.

Batman says criminals are a superstitious lot, but Bats himself is more superstitious than most of his rogues, and almost as crazy in his own ways.

I do find it interesting that the few times Batman has tried to break that no-kill code in main continuity, he's failed. Other than Darkseid, Batman has failed every time. Other heroes meanwhile, when they break that code (if they have it to begin with) they succeed and accomplish their goal. Makes me wonder if Bruce has some sort of deeply rooted psychological barrier where he *can't* take a life even if he wanted to or had to.

As for why Gotham doesn't just put its inmates on death row.....I've always just assumed Gotham is in a State that doesn't have the death penalty. There was that one time where they were going to execute the Joker, but if you don't just write that off as a inconsistency created for the purpose of the plot, you could still write it off as a short-term change in political policy.