FACT OR FANTASY: Gotham's "morally uncomplicated" citizens?

FACT OR FANTASY: Gotham's "morally uncomplicated" citizens?

As my own follow up to the article discussing Tony Stark's impossible free-fall to the sandy pits of Afghanistan, I decided to tackle what I consider to be one of the most unrealistic, ridiculous moments in CBM history.

Editorial Opinion
By SmokinIndo - Jan 20, 2011 12:01 PM EST
Filed Under: Batman
Source: The Dark Knight

Now don't get me wrong... I LOVE me some Dark Knight. I was more excited to see The Dark Knight than both Iron Man AND The Incredible Hulk in 2008. But I thought I'd share with you what I believe is one of the most moronic, ridiculous, and unrealistic plot devices I think I've ever witnessed in any CBM. And surprisingly, it exists in the seemingly infallible Batman series created by Christopher Nolan. Even more surprisingly, this rant has nothing to do with the impossible stunts performed by Batman in the movie, or the fact that Harvey Dent's scars would kill a man. It has to do with what many decree to be one of the greatest scenes in The Dark Knight. The finale with the two ships escaping Gotham City.



Towards the end of the movie, The Joker attaches a crapload of bombs to two ships leaving Gotham City. One ship is packed with innocent families trying to escape the Joker's terror. The other ship is filled with Gotham's most feared murderers, rapists, and thieves-a lot of whom are probably serving a lifetime in prison. The Joker hijacks the two ships and gives each ship the option to blow the other to smithereens. If neither ship blows the other one up, they both blow up! How nice of the Joker. What happens in the end is that both ships hesitate to blow the other up. A few take a stand and attempt to press the trigger, but they back off out of the sheer fact that no person wants to shed bloo. So neither ship blows the other up, and instead of the punishment that the Joker promised, Batman leaps in and saves the day.

Anyone that studies human behavior would tell you that human beings generally act in ways that maximize their payoff. This doesn't mean that we all are assholes, as helping others and being selfless often results in our own personal payoff. What Gotham's citizens did in The Dark Knight is FAR from anything even remotely maximizing to their payoff. In fact, it's completely detrimental and for no goddamn reason other than to make Batman win.

Are we expected to believe that a thousand or more people would stand idly by waiting for their death AND the death of the other ship instead of pressing the damn button, killing the other ship, and escaping a fate that would be twice as bad had they done nothing? I don't think there would be a single mother or father who would hesitate to blow up every last prisoner on that boat just to have their family get out alive. Not to mention that the other boat was filled with prisoners. I'm no advocate for the death penalty, but I think the question of who should be sacrificed is a no-brainer. Hold on... I'm not done. Take into account that at ANY SECOND the other boat could grab that switch and destroy the boat filled with civilians. And we're still expected to believe that every person would hesitate to press the button? Ha!

But the icing on the cake is at the end, after the Joker realizes that the boats didn't blow up. Batman starts go on about how the citizens of Gotham aren't like The Joker. That they're willing to believe, or some bullshit like that. Simply put, acting rationally does NOT make anyone like the Joker. As a matter of fact, standing idly by makes you a murderer like the Joker. Making a conscious decision to let both boats die instead of just one puts more blood on your hands than if they had just pressed the button. It also makes you insane... like the Joker. You're insane not just because you're killing YOURSELF, but because you'd have to lack any kind of ability to make rational decisions. You'd have to be severely mentally handicapped to what the citizens of Gotham did. What Batman said to the Joker sure sounded inspiring, but it was actually utterly retarded.

I can make-believe that the Norse Gods exist and fight crime on earth, or that a man can get bitten by a radioactive spider and gain superpowers, or that a galactic corps exists and is dedicated to fighting crime in each sector. But I find this plot device to be virtually inexcusable, especially in a film that praised for being so realistic that it could actually happen.
ABSOLUTE BATMAN #4 Recap And Review - Filler Or Necessary Context?
Related:

ABSOLUTE BATMAN #4 Recap And Review - Filler Or Necessary Context?
BATMAN: GARGOYLE OF GOTHAM #3 Recap And Review - More Answers Create More Questions
Recommended For You:

BATMAN: GARGOYLE OF GOTHAM #3 Recap And Review - More Answers Create More Questions

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
Exiles
Exiles - 1/20/2011, 1:13 PM
you know what [frick] realistic adaption its a [frick]ing CBM, this obsession of it being realistic is utter bullshit. but great point though
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 1:25 PM
@Gaston

I would rather live with that on my conscious knowing that I did the RIGHT thing instead of consciously letting the other ship blow me to hell, along with every single person on board with me. Unless the other ship does nothing at all, and we both get blown up by the Joker. In that case, I made a conscious decision to let my boat die AND the other boat die.
golden123
golden123 - 1/20/2011, 1:30 PM
I would have rather died and gone too heavan than pressed the trigger (or vote for pressing the trigger) and gone to hell. I'm not going to kill the convict boat (which innocent lives were on) just so me an my family could live. The people on the other boat were already paying there debt. to society why make them pay anymore. Many of those people didn't deserve to die. So I think it would be perfectly moral to not push the button. Besides, the Joker could of easily backstapped the boat that made the killing decision or he could of lied and given them there own detanator. Maybey they were thinking that.
golden123
golden123 - 1/20/2011, 1:32 PM
@Gaston: Your right, The idiot who presses the button SHOULD get deathrow. At the very least.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 1:36 PM
@Gaston

You don't think that I would have a case, with a thousand witnesses and a shitload of explosives on deck to serve as evidence?

@golden123

If there is a god, I would think he'd know precisely what was at stake and forgive me of my sin. Especially since choosing to not act would result in more deaths of twice as many people?
golden123
golden123 - 1/20/2011, 1:41 PM
@Indoraptor12: Well, the god I beleive in would punish the Joker for the killings. You shouldn't kill just to save the boat your on. Remember that the people on the other boat didn't deserve to die either. So that just makes you a selfish idiot.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 1:49 PM
@Golden123

Hahahahahaha. So choosing to act in a way that results in the LEAST persons killed makes a bad person? And the fact that I would be willing to face the repercussions because of it would make me the opposite of a selfish idiot.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 1:51 PM
@Gaston

Again, I would have one strong case with lots of evidence to back me up.
Deadshot
Deadshot - 1/20/2011, 2:07 PM
Very very interesting post, and I do hope you reply to this. It's sounds like you study Psychology at a university or something, since this is the kind of thing we talk about in my classes. For one its possible there was a large amount of people from both ships that believed the joker was bluffing about both ships being blown up. Think, wouldn't that be a good "practical joke"?

"I don't think there would be a single mother or father who would hesitate to blow up every last prisoner on that boat just to have their family get out alive. Not to mention that the other boat was filled with prisoners"

The civilians know they weren't all prisoners though, and these prisoners also have families, and who knows what their actual crimes were.
I understand completely the rationality thing, but Joker did not give them enough time to think, nor enough time to even comprehend the insane situation they were in, so I don't think people had the ability to use rational thought.
golden123
golden123 - 1/20/2011, 2:18 PM
@indoraptor: So if I kill someone for my own personal gain but I'm willing to go to prison for it. It makes me the opposite of a selfish idiot? You think that you wouldn't go to prison for what you did. That's the part that puts the idiot in "selfish idiot". So therefor your not willing to face the repercussions when you did the act because you didn't think it through in the begining. So don't give me that crap and think of a better response.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 2:30 PM
@Deadshot

Thank you for replying maturely to my argument. I actually don't study psychology at my university, but one of my teachers did (a high school teacher) and he enlightened me to the flawed logic at the end of The Dark Knight. We spent an entire class talking about this.

You say that people might have believed the Joker was bluffing. But I don't think any person would want to take that risk, especially after the Joker kept his word about blowing up the hospital.

As for the prisoners, you're absolutely right. But it's the lesser of two evils. We're talking about people who have committed crimes in their lives, some of them horrific (considering it's Gotham), versus innocent civilians with families and children on board. Which are you gonna choose? Of course, no one in every day life should ever have to make that decision.

And I think the amount of time they had would have proven enough to realize what they needed to do. But even if there was too little time to think, usually that kind of desperation would have brought out your instincts, and that would have been to save as many innocent lives as possible. In this case everyone on the boat, despite the fact that there were some innocents on the other boat as well.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 2:44 PM
@golden123

You continue to ignore the fact that I would not do it for selfish reasons. You continue to say that to justify your own cowardly approach. I would have done it to SAVE AS MANY INNOCENT LIVES AS POSSIBLE. So don't give me that crap about me being a selfish idiot. That's completely absurd and moronic. And if I die via the electric chair, I would have STILL saved those innocent lives.

@Gaston

Interesting point. Except we as the audience know exactly what the Joker is capable of. We know what he did with Rachel and Dent. The people on the boat don't know that. The people on the boat only know that he's kept his word on many other promises, including blowing up the hospital. I don't think that possibility would cross anyone's minds, and if it did I don't think anyone would take that risk.

Exiles
Exiles - 1/20/2011, 2:51 PM
its a [frick]ing movie based on comic book why are you taking this so seriously the whole point of movies is to escape for a while from reality.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 2:58 PM
@Exiles

The only reason I'm keeping it up is cause of these crazies who think I'm some sick twisted fool for explaining what the right thing to do would be.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 3:09 PM
@TheRiddler98

Sorry to hear about your predicament. My father spent 17 years in prison for a crime he did commit, but had reason for it. That doesn't change my position on the subject. If he was on that ship, he'd want to die instead of me. There were a ton of innocents on the ship I was on, and he would know what was at stake. And if neither parties chose to act, they would have both blown up.
trytan
trytan - 1/20/2011, 3:38 PM
There's also the thought that some pople may have of "Is Joker telling the truth?" What i mean is, giving each ship their own detonators and saying its for the other so they hit it and blow themselves up sounds like what Joker would think as a funny joke.
FutureCBMHero
FutureCBMHero - 1/20/2011, 3:47 PM
Soldiers and Cops have trouble taking lives, and they've been trained to killed. It's a heavy burden to carry with you, unless you're a sociopath.

I honestly doubt that most people would push the button, or want that burden.

And of course, if you want to get really real, if I were the captain, I would've locked myself in a room and made sure that no one else was going to freak out ( bc I can admit that that could/would happen) and try and use the detonator.
WorldsGreatestdetective
WorldsGreatestdetective - 1/20/2011, 4:41 PM
What makes you any better than the murderers on the other boat if you press the button?? You have a very cynical view of human beings and I'm no saint but there is no way I press that button. Pressing the button is not rational because you are acting as an animal, dog eat dog, exactly what the Joker wants. Also would you really believe the homicidal insane villain that is the joker, he doesn't play fair and kills for the sake of anarchy, so what makes one think that it doesn't blow their own ship or both. THe Dark Knight is a Character Study of people in general and it does have a positive message, yes there are those who try to destroy our humanity, yes the best of us may fall, but we have to live up to what is expected that is moral. The whole point of Batman is to be that symbol to pass down as legend for people later on to get reminded why we should act moral. Now you can make the argument that they did vote to blow up the ship but nobody had the nerve or the cynical nature to blow the other ship, human nature is better than what you think, a minority does not reflect a majority
Ethic
Ethic - 1/20/2011, 4:53 PM
I think you misunderstood Gaston's last comment and it's the most interesting one yet. He said
"What if the Joker gave you the trigger to detonate the bombs in YOUR ferry?
I'm sure that thought would have crossed your mind.
Would you have pressed the button ever so eagerly then?"

(If this isnt what he meant, then it's a scenario i'm putting forward)
He didn't mean "what if joker tricked you" (like he did about harvey and rachel)

He meant if the joker told you that you had a detonator for a bomb thats on YOUR boat, would you still blow it up to half the kill count? You've said repeatedly it's about halving the kill count so would that still apply.
Choppaholic26
Choppaholic26 - 1/20/2011, 5:26 PM
You people are completely ignoring the [frick]ing argument. Is it realistic the way people acted in the film? Hell no.
Arguing against human nature is a waste of time.

But ignoring that what we have here is just a classic psychological morality thought experiment. In which we should analyze the best overall choice of action while taking everything into account. You morons are simply using elementary logic.

Variables and controls are set, each boat must either choose one to die or face death for all. No exceptions, No imaginary friend or man in a bat costume will save anyone.

Given this, it doesn't take a Stage 6 Post-Conventional mind (Based on Kohlberg's stages of morality) to realize that one of the boats must be destroyed. There is a chance for the least amount of people to perish and that cannot be argued. ONE MUST GO DOWN. There is no chance for them to be saved so you must choose one.

This is where it gets down to cold hard rudimentary logic. One boat full of completely innocent people, the other with (for the sake of the argument since Harvey Dent had completely conclusive evidence)criminals and their guards. Even if some of the inmates were innocent it wouldn't matter, the guards are also innocent but we are out weighing the force with the least impact. No one is arguing that it is a hard decision, that's the whole [frick]ing point of moral dilemmas. But you people are being retarded with your reasoning. If I was on that ship with the inmates it would occur to me that this would be the right choice. I have no doubt that human nature would take it's course and that facing death I would freak out, but again, because I know how obvious the [frick]ing choice is. The stupid director thought he would attempt to put in a mind-jarring attempt at a moral dilemma and you stupid idiots ate it up. As far as moral dilemmas go this is the most obvious attempt at one I have ever seen. Real modern dilemmas have been put in place by some of the greatest thinkers of our time. Carefully putting together variables and controls to make it as challenging an issue as it should be. If you think the sad attempt in this movie even compares then you're just retarded.

Everyone who is not seeing this are just in Stage 3 and 4 of morality. And you cannot be helped.

P.S
@Gaston
I suggest you try reading into how the law actually works before bringing in outside variables.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 5:35 PM
@WorldsGreatestDetective

Once again, another person skips over the entire point of my article. So now it's considered cruel and animalistic to choose the lesser of two evils when faced with a horrifying moral dilemma? You do realize that failure to act results in the death of not just your boat but the other boat as well, assuming the other boat doesn't act either. Now where's the justice and morality in that, when you could have had a hand in saving all the innocent lives on your boat.

I find it much more cynical to believe that human beings would just sit there instead of acting and saving as many people as they could.

@Choppaholic26

Finally, somebody with brains instead of carrots speaks out on the issue.
WorldsGreatestdetective
WorldsGreatestdetective - 1/20/2011, 6:21 PM
@ indoraptor its not moral to act because who gives you the right to decide who lives or dies. We are not gods we are human beings its called humanity. You sir have given in to the joker's idea that humans only care for themselves and we live dog eat dog, Ideas are more important than lives, thats what makes people immortal, for their ideas to be passed down beyond life. You and Choppaholic26 do not know the meaning of being human if you believe you are justify to take a life based on the circumstances, you become a murderer no matter the reason. The moral thing would be to realize that it is not my place to kill. Read some literature and you will see examples of what Humanity is suppose to do, read The count of Monte Cristo do something besides trying to defend an action that is not right, because what is the point of living if you are not learning the lessons of life, my life is no more important than the next or vice versa. I'm not going to comment anymore because I can't force anybody to realize what is moral but remember that saving lives isn't the only way to act moral or good.

And Choppaholic26 you know nothing of law, if you want I will teach you law as a bed time story, I'll even teach constitutional law, and common law while I'm at it.
WorldsGreatestdetective
WorldsGreatestdetective - 1/20/2011, 6:27 PM
Also the prisoners have already received the decision of punishment, you can't judge them for this situation. I'm not saying to stand back if somebody is in the process trying to kill someone else and you had to kill them to save the others life thats fine but your statement is its ok to decide and play god over who lives and dies just because of the past even if they were already punished for it because we have to save the "innocent" lives
Choppaholic26
Choppaholic26 - 1/20/2011, 7:10 PM
@worldgreatestdetective

Nice sob story but pointless none the less. You are using classic level 3 moral reasoning. That which is just slightly above a child. You wanna talk about life lessons? If there is one you should consider it's the preciousness of life. You only see black and white, anyone who kills doesn't treasure life according to you. So the soldier that fights insurgency in the middle east so that children can have the choice to grow up without anarchy and warfare doesn't give a shit about life right? I find life to be precious as much as anyone else. Which is why I want to save as many as I can.

Yes, please don't comment, if anyone can't be forced into seeing the bigger picture it's you. In this experiment the only possible answer is the one with the least amount of fatalities. Get of your high chair.

If you actually agree with Gaston then your knowledge of law is on par with Sarah Palin's.
SmokinIndo
SmokinIndo - 1/20/2011, 7:24 PM
@WorldsGreatestDetective

Who gives YOU the right to decide? You're exercising your right to murder by default. Just because you're not taking action doesn't mean you are without responsibility. You are consciously allowing the people on your boat, and the other boat, to die. It's that simple. And for the record. Human beings, in dire circumstances that present them with such a dilemma, must decide between the life and death of a human being. It's not immoral to make that decision. It's strength and courage to have to make that decision that no one else can make. (I think Alfred said that in TDK)

In the 1950s, a Catholic family gave birth to siamese twins. According to the physician, the heart they shared was only strong enough for one of them. If they shared the heart, both of them would die. The family presented the case to the pope, and the pope told them that the two children would have to grow up conjoined. 8 months later, both twins died. What is moral about that?

Or how about the case of the woman whose pregnancy will prove detrimental to her life? Either the unborn child must be terminated or the woman shall. Is it immoral to choose one life over the other? Should we just refuse to act and let them both die?
jadams07
jadams07 - 1/20/2011, 10:03 PM
I have always thought that the Joker had them both rigged to blow no matter what.
Whiteharted
Whiteharted - 1/21/2011, 3:41 AM
The hell? You are you are agreeing? Of course you would press the button!!!!! Do you honestly want to die so that hundreds of KILLERS AND RAPISTS can live??????? Those people don't deserve to live anyway!
LuckyKyd
LuckyKyd - 1/21/2011, 3:44 AM
WOW kudos dude on what I must say is one of the best editorials I've ever read on this site!

Really thought provoking. And of course I'm intrigued to go all nutty and have my say on what I consider morally right. But the fact of matter is that in the boat situation there is no morally right! There is no conscious decision!

Why? Because the person who makes the decision to blow the other boat up is surely rationalizing but he is not conscious as to the effect. It is pure human instincts to survive, but the whole idea of it is that humans(including the Gotham citizens) believe in more thatn just surviving, which is essentially what make us human and not some instinctive mammal. And why the person wether he be a "civilian" or "criminal" will most likely be hunted by the so called rational decision for the rest of his life.
Now I see why you(indoraptor) would choose to live with it, and sure says a lot about your mental strenght. But(and I might be overspeaking here) I think human behavior have shown that humans are just as keen on fearring to make such a choice and rather die than to compromise and thereby even loss there own life(now i realize that such study can have been made in real life).

Anyway I think the scene was meant to symbolize the transformation of Gotham, that they are not as corruptable as The joker makes them out to be.
And though I agree with you on the Joker, he is actually rational in a lot of his decision. It just a matter if you believe in his vision of the world and I believe that the citizens of Gotham, by not blowing each other, have shown him that they believe in the ideals that Harvey stand for through most of the movie.
Daudda
Daudda - 1/21/2011, 8:18 AM
@indoraptor12 you make a great point. in every crowd there is always some a$# hole that doesnt even spare a second to consider others, especially when his life is on the line. so you make a great observation. i guess the writer should have had batman with the two detonators and having to make the choice, you know like what spiderman had to do in spiderman part 1 choosing between saving MJ or the children
FutureCBMHero
FutureCBMHero - 1/21/2011, 1:53 PM
I said it earlier, if you wanted it to be reeeeallly realistic, there's no way the guy with the detonator would surround himself with any of the other passengers. And on the prisoner boat, there is no way anyone would've ever even considered taking it below deck.

Also, no one even tried an escape. Joker said he'd blow it up, but holy shit no one even tried! I'd be figuring out how to get off the boat, a secret hatch or something. Heck, and unless Joker had motion detectors he was busy fighing Batman for 10 minutes, so we wouldn't have even known.

Of course that's all straying a bit off course.

I still think that you can talk and project all you want about these kinds of things, but in the end no one can really know until they are in the situation. I said it before and I'll say it again, taking a life is not easy, not for trained killers and certainly not for the average person.
FutureCBMHero
FutureCBMHero - 1/21/2011, 2:48 PM
The other thing left out here is the hope, false or not, that the police or Batman could save them in time. You have to factor that into the mindset.

And then there's also the, "they havent blown us up yet" every second that they live would register that the other boat is human and that they don't want to kill either. That would still have an effect, whether it be indecision or the choice not to do it.

1 2
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder