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

[lefthanded]

You know, I never really understood the idea that Batman has a "no killing rule." I get that Batman writers have made that a trope in some storylines, since they keep raising the stakes of villainy of his Rogue gallery and make the Joker more and more depraved.

Its a standard rule for most mainstream superheroes, so its not like its a special rule that Batman has that needs a special reason to explain. I'm on board with the Batman "no guns" rule, but a "no kiiling rule" is just a general rule that most superheroes follow. I understand that if Batman killed the Joker, he would save an incalculable amount of individuals from harm or death. But that same question could be asked about any comic book superhero. Spider-man - Green Goblin, Green Lantern - Sinestro, Superman - Zod..... (oh wait, we saw that in Man of Steel....).

In terms of the point of the OP, from what I understand of it, 'not killing' gives moral high ground / pride / doing the difficult path instead of the easy route / avoids the negative psychological consequences of murder, and whether it has any scientific merit. I would argue that it does not have 'scientific' merit. I am not aware of any mainstream (Re: Reported on by major news outlets as opposed to scientific journals) reports that the act of killing has an effect on the brain, neurons, etc. Sure, there have been reports on apparent differences in electrical activity in the brain of 'normal' vs 'sociopathic', etc, but none that would likely fit with the OP question. So there likely isn't a measurable scientific basis for a no killing stance.

[Tuck]

That is not an actual, valid excuse.

For not killing?

Or for having nebulous internal logic?

[Carabas]

For not killing?

Or for having nebulous internal logic?

The latter.
The existence of other terribly written books doesn't your (generic you) justify lazy writing. "But those guys are doing it too..." is never an excuse for anything.

[frostedemma]

I get that witnessing his parents death when he was a child scared him deeply and because of that he doesn't want to kill but there comes a point when he has to question his value and morals. The joker bashed jason forehead killing him, assaulted babs and murdered countless others yet bruce still doesn't want to kill him because "it would be too easy"? So what does he do instead, have the joker locked up in arkham where he escapes like five minutes later and the cycle continues. Killing isn't crack cocaine you won't get hooked after one hit. I think bruce needs to put his big girl pants on and kill the joker once and for all it's not like the dc universe isn't crawling with villains

[phantom1592]

I get that witnessing his parents death when he was a child scared him deeply and because of that he doesn't want to kill but there comes a point when he has to question his value and morals. The joker bashed jason forehead killing him, assaulted babs and murdered countless others yet bruce still doesn't want to kill him because "it would be too easy"? So what does he do instead, have the joker locked up in arkham where he escapes like five minutes later and the cycle continues. Killing isn't crack cocaine you won't get hooked after one hit. I think bruce needs to put his big girl pants on and kill the joker once and for all it's not like the dc universe isn't crawling with villains

Don't you though? Where is the line drawn? It's a simple question, but for someone like Batman it's a pretty serious one.

SURE... Joker is irredeemable and deserves to be killed. It's not anymore Bruce's fault then it is any orderly who could 'not' take the air bubbles out of his daily injection or any cop who could put two rounds in his head transferring the prisoner. Heck... I'm surprised there hasn't been SOMEONE who actively applied to Arkham with the sole intention of walking into a room with some of those crazies and shooting them in the face 'for the greater good'.

But regardless... Sure, Joker has earned death.


What about Two Face? He's killed a BUNCH of people too. Scarecrow experiments on people to death... Mad Hatter abducts children and is sometimes portrayed as pedophile... Penguin has a ton of blood on his hands too. Why do they just get punched and Joker gets killed? Poison Ivy and Ra's are more dangerous and try to strike on bigger scales than Joker ever has. EVERYONE Batman fights deserves to be killed. Writers don't give Batman villains interested in corporate espionage anymore... it's all rape, violence and murder in Gotham.

Does Bruce start a rating system for all his enemies and when they hit 7 gold stars they are 'kill worthy'? That's the whole point of 'once I kill one... I'll start killing them all. To do anything else really WOULD make him a Hypocrite. If he kills Joker out of revenge... and lets be honest, if it's because of Jason or Barbara (both of whom are fine now...) but not Two Face, it's because of personal Revenge.

The secondary reason for it is Gordon. You simply can't put on a mask and kill people in the street. Gordon AND Batman believe in the system (Despite it's company mandated flaws), and that's why they can work together. A Batman who kills doesn't get to work with the police, doesn't get to work with Superman, represent the heroes on the JLA... He gets to be hunted down by cops.

Cops may kill in the line of duty, but they have internal affairs governing them... Batman doesn't. He governs himself with his own rules.

[JBatmanFan05]

I ardently support Batman's no-kill rule. It's serves practical purposes for DC and is supported by longstanding deontological views of morality (deontological vs utilitarian).

In my mind, I think Batman would kill in self-defense and defense of others, BUT only if he has no other way or tried every other way. And given his vast skills, we're never going to see that as a reader and we shouldn't.

Chuck Dixon, who is Catholic or grew up Catholic, understands the morality philosophy underpinning Batman's no-kill rule. Catholicism sides with that view of morality. Joker Devils Advocate is a great example of Dixon showing the extent of Batman's moral views, the implications of his views. Devils Advocate is very deontological.

[Agent Z]

Its a standard rule for most mainstream superheroes, so its not like its a special rule that Batman has that needs a special reason to explain. I'm on board with the Batman "no guns" rule, but a "no kiiling rule" is just a general rule that most superheroes follow. I understand that if Batman killed the Joker, he would save an incalculable amount of individuals from harm or death. But that same question could be asked about any comic book superhero. Spider-man - Green Goblin, Green Lantern - Sinestro, Superman - Zod..... (oh wait, we saw that in Man of Steel....).

For the Green Lanterns, they abandoned that rule long after Sinestro War. Spider-Man does follow the no killing rule but the thing to be noted is that unlike Batman, Spider-Man’s writers don’t normally draw attention to it. Most Spider-Man enemies are more interested in making a “big score” not causing death and destruction for the sake of it. The closest Peter has to a Joker among his rogues gallery are Norman Osborn, Carnage and Morlun and those three are very difficult if not outright impossible to kill. Meaning if Peter did decide to put them twelve feet under he likely wouldn’t be able to do so.
With Batman this question is repeatedly being brought up by the writers themselves regardless of if the readers want it asked or not.

[Agent Z]

Don't you though? Where is the line drawn? It's a simple question, but for someone like Batman it's a pretty serious one.

SURE... Joker is irredeemable and deserves to be killed. It's not anymore Bruce's fault then it is any orderly who could 'not' take the air bubbles out of his daily injection or any cop who could put two rounds in his head transferring the prisoner. Heck... I'm surprised there hasn't been SOMEONE who actively applied to Arkham with the sole intention of walking into a room with some of those crazies and shooting them in the face 'for the greater good'.

But regardless... Sure, Joker has earned death.


What about Two Face? He's killed a BUNCH of people too. Scarecrow experiments on people to death... Mad Hatter abducts children and is sometimes portrayed as pedophile... Penguin has a ton of blood on his hands too. Why do they just get punched and Joker gets killed? Poison Ivy and Ra's are more dangerous and try to strike on bigger scales than Joker ever has. EVERYONE Batman fights deserves to be killed. Writers don't give Batman villains interested in corporate espionage anymore... it's all rape, violence and murder in Gotham.

Does Bruce start a rating system for all his enemies and when they hit 7 gold stars they are 'kill worthy'? That's the whole point of 'once I kill one... I'll start killing them all. To do anything else really WOULD make him a Hypocrite. If he kills Joker out of revenge... and lets be honest, if it's because of Jason or Barbara (both of whom are fine now...) but not Two Face, it's because of personal Revenge.

The secondary reason for it is Gordon. You simply can't put on a mask and kill people in the street. Gordon AND Batman believe in the system (Despite it's company mandated flaws), and that's why they can work together. A Batman who kills doesn't get to work with the police, doesn't get to work with Superman, represent the heroes on the JLA... He gets to be hunted down by cops.

Cops may kill in the line of duty, but they have internal affairs governing them... Batman doesn't. He governs himself with his own rules.

Gordon and Batman both flipped the middle finger to the law a long time ago. If Bruce truly believed in the system he'd be wearing a badge not a mask.

[JBatmanFan05]

Batman and Gordon violate the system to reinforce their belief in it overall, broadly. They observe many rules and spirits of the system and process criminals through the system's institutions.


From Magnum Force (second Dirty Harry film)

Lieutenant Briggs [villain murderous vigilante cop]: You're a good cop, Harry. You had a chance to join my team, but you decided to stick with the system.

Harry Callahan: Briggs, I hate the goddamn system! But until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I'll stick with it.

[nonsense man]

I think batman uses the system even though it has its flaws a rich man could buy his way out. A criminal like the joker could have a fallowing and if the state tries to execute him it will make him a martyr and crime will grow. It goes to show you the sickness of morally decaying society in both the comic book world and reality. It is imperfect that is why he is a vigilante that bends the rules to at least get some sort of justice out of it but others bend it to get off scott free and not care about consequences. Batman and Gordon know it is imperfect but it is the best you got in their crazy world or in ours

[Agent Z]

I think batman uses the system even though it has its flaws a rich man could buy his way out. A criminal like the joker could have a fallowing and if the state tries to execute him it will make him a martyr and crime will grow. It goes to show you the sickness of morally decaying society in both the comic book world and reality. It is imperfect that is why he is a vigilante that bends the rules to at least get some sort of justice out of it but others bend it to get off scott free and not care about consequences. Batman and Gordon know it is imperfect but it is the best you got in their crazy world or in ours

The world of Batman is not even remotely like ours.

[phantom1592]

My favorite Batman/Gordon introduction. Really draws the lines between 'Law' and 'Justice'. Believing in the Law is one thing... when it works. Sometimes they need to bend it, step around it, dodge it... but they don't want to flat out IGNORE it.

[Ascended]

A Batman who kills doesn't get to work with the police, doesn't get to work with Superman

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).

[phantom1592]

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).

Yeah, but at the time my point was holding. The JLA turned on Wonder Woman and her reputation was shot after killing Max. Superman had mental breakdowns after the Kryptonians, Barry was on Trial after killing Thawne.

I think Green Arrow probably has the biggest body count and is still considered a welcome member of the team, but that's mostly inconsistent writing. First time he accidentally killed a crook he ran away, shaved his head and joined a monestary till Hal and Dinah went looking for him... Then since the Grell years he traded his trick arrows for sharp ones and is more 'fluid' on the mortality issue.


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.

[Agent Z]

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).

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.

Yeah, but at the time my point was holding. The JLA turned on Wonder Woman and her reputation was shot after killing Max. Superman had mental breakdowns after the Kryptonians, Barry was on Trial after killing Thawne.

Max Lord was not the first person Diana killed and no one had an issue with those killings. The reason her reputation took a nosedive was because of an out-of-context tape making it look like she killed an innocent man. Batman and Superman were the only members of the JLA who turned on her and those two are legendary for how anal they are about killing humans or human-like beings.

I think Green Arrow probably has the biggest body count and is still considered a welcome member of the team, but that's mostly inconsistent writing. First time he accidentally killed a crook he ran away, shaved his head and joined a monestary till Hal and Dinah went looking for him... Then since the Grell years he traded his trick arrows for sharp ones and is more 'fluid' on the mortality issue.

Did he run away because the JLA had an issue with him killing? There’s a difference between Ollie disapproving of such action the League disapproving.

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.

The Joker has repeatedly run circles around Batman. Also sneaking up behind Bane and Clayface isn’t exactly helpful.