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

[Tuck]

I agree with your post, other than this.

Superman has killed a number of people over the years. And not just in the early Golden Age or the three infamous Phantom Zone inmates from the end of Byrne's run in the 80's.

I don't want to derail the thread, but just about everyone in the League has killed before; Diana's killed Max Lord, Medusa, any number of sentient mythical creatures, and I know there's a few others I'm forgetting. Arthur has killed before, Hal's killed plenty of people (most of them Sinestro Corps members), even Barry killed Thawne.

Batman's actually the odd-man-out for not having ever taken a life (though he's tried to a couple times with the Joker in the heat of the moment).

This is a problem with how characters around the DCU are depicted, not Batman.

As I wrote in an earlier post, violent crime in the real world is down significantly in the US since the 50s and 60s, but comics have gone full bore in the opposite direction. This is made worse by the reality that the use of police force has become a contentious topic. Ramping up both the violence of criminals and the superhero response to it is bizarre and dissonant.

[Gurz]

Killing is wrong and evil, if you kill, you do evil, and that makes you evil. It's as simple as that but the debate goes on and oposite side of the debate is what's wrong with this world... lol

[Ascended]

One of the issues with Batman killing, is that he doesn't need to. Like Superman... He can literally do anything, plan anything, have the perfect body and completely predict his enemies.... and UNLIKE Superman and Wonder Woman... isn't fighting Doomsdays and demigods. He fights clowns and people with scars and personality disorders. Sneaking up behind them and punching them in the face REALLY does the job just fine. It's hard to argue that Zod could be stopped with a generic punch and a pair of Handcuffs... but Joker and Two-face?? Yeah, that works just fine. Legally speaking, he doesn't NEED to snap their necks around.

Absolutely true.

It does make me wonder what the in-universe reason is Bruce never asked to have his worst foes imprisoned in the Phantom Zone or an Oan sciencell or something though.

Bruce killed a parademon in Cosmic Odyssey, killed Darkseid in Final Crisis and there's a few stories of him killing vampires. It's just these people aren't human so they don't count in Bruce's mind.

Well, I give vampires a pass because they're not actually alive, and depending on your view of parademons neither are they. But I forgot about Darkseid. I guess it's okay to kill gods. Actually, that does fit a certain aspect of Bruce's mindset, doesn't it?

This is a problem with how characters around the DCU are depicted, not Batman.

I definitely agree the level of inconsistency is rather sad. I've always been annoyed by that. And bear in mind, I'm not arguing that Bruce should be killing people. I actually think he should hold to a no-killing code more than any of his peers. But inconsistent or not, all of his peers have taken lives, and all of them (except Barry maybe?) have killed multiple times. That's just the canon.

Now, I personally have no issue with a hero using lethal force when they have to. But Bruce shouldn't be one of them. I don't think he's even capable of it, much less willing to.

[SiegePerilous02]

Did he even kill Darkseid in Final Crisis? I thought he just wounded him.

Superman sang him into non-existence or whatever in the end.

[TheCape]

Did he even kill Darkseid in Final Crisis? I thought he just wounded him.

Superman sang him into non-existence or whatever in the end.

He wounded him mortally and has all intentions of killing him, but technically he didn't.

[Carabas]

He wounded him mortally and has all intentions of killing him, but technically he didn't.

The intention was saving the life and soul of the body Darkseid's spirit was possessing.

[Ascended]

The intention was saving the life and soul of the body Darkseid's spirit was possessing.

Really? Never heard that. I like it, it's interesting. Is that your own interpretation, or did this come from Morrison or someone? I never read the scene that way, myself. I always saw it as Darkseid breaking a unbreakable man and taking away the things most important to him.

[Agent Z]

Absolutely true.

It does make me wonder what the in-universe reason is Bruce never asked to have his worst foes imprisoned in the Phantom Zone or an Oan sciencell or something though.



Well, I give vampires a pass because they're not actually alive, and depending on your view of parademons neither are they. But I forgot about Darkseid. I guess it's okay to kill gods. Actually, that does fit a certain aspect of Bruce's mindset, doesn't it?



I definitely agree the level of inconsistency is rather sad. I've always been annoyed by that. And bear in mind, I'm not arguing that Bruce should be killing people. I actually think he should hold to a no-killing code more than any of his peers. But inconsistent or not, all of his peers have taken lives, and all of them (except Barry maybe?) have killed multiple times. That's just the canon.

Now, I personally have no issue with a hero using lethal force when they have to. But Bruce shouldn't be one of them. I don't think he's even capable of it, much less willing to.

There was a parademon in Gail Simone's Secret Six who was very much alive. Don't see how vampires don't count as alive when they walk, talk and feed.

[Ascended]

There was a parademon in Gail Simone's Secret Six who was very much alive.

I remember that guy. He was fun.

Parademons are weird. Sometimes they're written as living creatures with independent thought. Sometimes they're just bags of meat and circuits under Darkseid's control.

Don't see how vampires don't count as alive when they walk, talk and feed.

Got me. It's just apparently the common fictional convention to rule that vampires aren't alive. Which, because they're undead, I suppose they're technically not, despite being sentient.