Existential Comics | Website
Alt Text
“At the heart of Batman’s being, like all theater kids, is a boundless narcissism that eats away at his core.”
Explanation
Many versions of Batman have a strict “no killing” rule, which is exactly the kind of intuition the Trolley Problem is attacking. Why is it different to actively kill someone vs passively letting five people die? In particular, Batman’s version seems to be a sort of “honor code”, which something close to a moral system, but it is entirely inward looking. In other words, fulfilling the honor system doesn’t do good for the world, it elevates the status of the honorable man. In a sense it’s the worst possible way to answer a moral question, “I want to kill the five people because I personally would lose something (my honor)”.
Also its pretty showy to dress up as a bat. One might even call him a weirdo.
Transcript
8 Panel Comic
Panel 1: The Riddler stands at the lever explaining his setup of the classic Trolley Problem. Tied to one track are 5 people, and tied to the diverted track is 1 person. A trolley is prepared to mow down the 5 people unless the lever is pulled, diverting it to the path with one person.
Riddler: Alright Batman riddle me this. A trolley is moving down this track and is going to kill five people, but if you switch tracks it will only kill one, do you pull the lever?
Panel 2: Batman shakes his fist at the Riddler
Batman: Curse your implausible games, Riddler!
Panel 3: Batman hesitates in front of the lever, his hand shaking.
Batman: The right thing to do is save five people, but I have sworn to my code of ethics to never kill!
Panel 4: The Riddler exults in the devious dilemma delaying Batman’s decision.
Batman: I cannot do it! I cannot be the one to kill directly!
Riddler: Looks like the Batman has failed Philosophy 101! HAHAHAHAHA!
Panel 5: Batman watches as the trolley splatters 5 people across the track as the Riddler continues in his exultations.
Panel 6: Batman now sits in his Batcave as his Alfred arrives with his dinner on a covered tray.
Alfred: But what I don’t understand Sir, is how upholding your moral code can have more value than their lives?
Panel 7: Batman smoking a cigarette puts on his best grizzled and hard boiled face.
Batman: Because I’m a narcissist, Alfred. I value my own ego above everything, and I didn’t want to lose the “no killing” thing, because I like bragging about it. That’s all.
Panel 8: Alfred is shocked at Batman’s response.
Alfred: Really, I never thought so…
Batman: I dress up as a bat to fight crime. Of course I’m a narcissist. Your kind of a moron, Alfred, honestly.
I've seen a lot of arguments about this and information but I still don't know if I buy the premise that pulling the lever makes you the killer of the one which this hinges on entirely. Riddler is already the killer, you just have reduce the harm by steering him to kill the one instead of the five (assuming Batman didn't have a gadget that could have saved everyone blah blah blah).
I keep meaning to dig into analysis of the trolley problem using different ethical frameworks. One of these days.
It's true, if your main concern just who is the "killer," which is valid. It's just that there seems to be some responsibility conferred to our actions in the trolley problem, as we have the ability to change its outcome, 5 dead or 1. Many people side with utilitarianism here, but its a deep moral dilemma that is very helpful in exploring the nuances of ethical reasoning.
And basically, it has a different answer for essentially every ethical framework you apply to it 😆. At least in the moral justification. When you do look in to it, try writing down your personal feelings and reasoning, then check out the modified trolley problem with the large man and the bridge and see of your answers change. Interesting stuff.
Oh I was going to take notes and then replay The Trolley Solution to test my thoughts.
As a first pass not having looked at it as much though, I've always considered throwing the fat man to be immoral and murder due to the active participation needed to put him into harms way vs the passiveness of the trolley problem.
That game looks awesome, I'm definitely going to check it out.
Active participation and violation of personal autonomy are big factors in that version. It usually is enough to change the answer of people who took a more utilitarian view in the first iteration. But, they dont have any bearing on utilitarianism, so people who argue for killing the one in the first iteration are somewhat compelled to do the same in the second in order to achieve logical consistency. Otherwise there seems to be something questionable about how they reached their first answer.
It sounds like you may be more on the libertarian, Kantian side of the reasoning when it comes to human life, which I think is generally a safer place to be. But that's the beauty of ethics, it's all about the exploration and trying to see different viewpoints.
I've always viewed myself as a utilitarianist but feel it's hard to determine a correct utilitarian choice at the small personal scale like the fat man trolley problem so I revert to a more deontological/humanist framework. Like with the fat man trolley problem a lot of people might just focus on the six people involved, but I start thinking about the news headlines, the impacted families who lost whoever, and spiral. Where do you cut it off? That's why I feel utilitarian falls apart small scale because it's never actually small scale.
That is the hard part with the different viewpoints is that ultimately you can arrive at the same conclusion from very different starting points so does that make them both correct or does it hint at a universal truth since both arrive at the same answer? Aaaaand where off to the depths of philosophy and why it's still a thing lol.
If I remember right based on secondhand description, there was a Star Trek episode in which a sociopath gave the Enterprise a trolley problem to kill one or the other people.
They saved everyone by refusing to answer, and making very clear it was the sociopath that was performing the killing, with no one’s “aid”.
Was this a Q episode? This sounds like a Q episode.
No, It was one of the early ones where they're in a space hole and Picard self destructs the whole ship rather than be experiment killed to death slowly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease
Ok, so then extrapolate further. What if the other person wasn't tied to the tracks and instead the switched train just barrels through one child's bedroom. Still moral?
Extrapolate even further. Suppose three different people are dying because they each need different organ transplants. Is it moral to kill one person and save those three? What if someone else kidnapped the victim but asked you to do the deed - is that person the killer? If your line isn't at "My actions resulted in this death that otherwise wouldn't have happened," then where is it?
That line of questioning seems to imply action and inaction are different but again I've seen no evidence they are. Choosing to stand by and not throw the lever is an action.
... and then you use that reasoning to answer the questions.
I remember being met with this dilemma in the game Infamous. Your girlfriend is suspended from a building, a bunch of doctors from another. The city is quarantined so they are vital. You only have enough time to save one. If you go to aave your girlfriend it's not her and she's with the doctors, if you go to save the doctors she's the solo girl. There is a reason for this I won't spoil.
Batman is a responsible for someone's death no matter what in this situation.