The world of superheroes is full of moral decisions, decisions that, if we put ourselves in the place of the superheroes who make them, we will discover that they are not easy to do. Normally we are fully convinced that our ethical beliefs are correct, but the truth is that we are far from being so straightforwardly infallible. There are several ethical theories according to which moral decisions are based on different parameters. The two best-known theories are deontologism and utilitarianism. Deontologism completely avoids the consequences of our actions, it defines a set of rules and duties that must be fulfilled whatever the consequences. On the other hand, utilitarianism calculates the happiness generated by an action and subtracts any pain or suffering that such action may cause. As sometimes we let ourselves be guided by one of them, other times we let ourselves be carried away by the other. Something similar happens to superheroes, some of them follow deontologism while others are followers of utilitarianism. In this written essay, I will focus and talk about utilitarianism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayBefore focusing and arguing about the qualities that characterize Batman, I would like to introduce one of the most notable characters from the Batman films, the Joker. This villain seems extremely concerned with demonstrating a person's corruptibility, and that he also wants to show, to the world and to himself, that every human being is potentially evil. During the film, the Joker fails in his attempt to corrupt Batman. Indeed, the villain, in his attempt to highlight the evil in Batman, would probably have been happy if Batman had decided to kill him. This would have proven El Guasón's central thesis that, under the right circumstances, we can all commit evil acts. If Batman had killed the Joker, he would have proven that Batman is not incorruptible. Now, the above leads me to believe that the Joker is trying to show that anyone, given the right circumstances, can become as bad as him. But for all that, it does not achieve its objective, at least not at all. The Joker is a person who brutally rejects the moral system that governs the social context in which he lives. He places himself above positive law and moral imperatives and, from there, he views with disdain what he considers to be a submissive and boring society. The Joker has caused the deaths of countless ordinary citizens of the Gothic city. Batman suffers with the Joker, the population and the police too. This might make the viewer think whether it would not be better for our masked hero to end up with this criminal once and for all. Many will say yes, but the answer is not so simple if we analyze in depth the moral dilemma of Bruce Wayne and Batman. However, Batman resists temptation and does not kill the Joker. Now, you don't get to see this in the movie, but in Batman stories, it's common for villains, after spending time behind bars, to escape from prison. The Joker is an expert at this, he seems to get out of prison whenever he feels like it and of course every time he gets out of prison he is tasked with fulfilling the function of weaponizing chaos and spreading terror . He kills a lot of people and tends to kill people close to Batman or Bruce Wayne. Faced with this, it is inevitable to ask the following question: why not kill the Joker once and for all, and put an end to so much suffering? Batman has always shown that he doesn't kill his enemies just tonot catch up with them. This seems like a valid response to me, and I think it actually allows Batman to claim a moral position that his enemies don't have. However, one might ask the following question: given that the Joker has a tendency to escape from prison, and that every time he does so there is a mortal victim, Batman, refusing to kill the Joker, be selfish? Should Batman put aside his concern for his own moral integrity and kill the Joker to avoid needlessly losing more lives? I don't intend to answer these questions, but I would like to discuss a little about their meaning and some possible answers. A strong argument to say that Batman should kill the Joker would be utilitarian. Indeed, if we look at utilitarianism, we could argue as follows. By killing this villain, many lives would be saved in the name of his sacrifice. This type of ethics is known as utilitarianism and has been formally defended by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham. Bentham reflected, in summary, that we should always guide our actions in such a way that they produce the greatest well-being for the greatest possible number of people. This is a consequentialist ethics, ultimately what is morally analyzed are the consequences of the act, not the act itself. In this vision, the radical proposals already mentioned would be perfectly morally protected. In other words, the end justifies the means. Utilitarianism asks us, when evaluating the moral quality of our actions, to consider whether it contributes to maximizing the happiness of society as a whole. Utilitarianism understands society as a sum of particularly considered individuals, it therefore understands the notion of general interest as the sum of the individual interests of the people who make up the community. Since what we seek is general happiness, it is necessary to establish a principle that allows us to calculate whether a particular act contributes to the common good. This is called the principle of utility, which determines, according to the above criteria (whether or not it contributes to general happiness), whether an action can be described as correct or incorrect. By this type of reasoning, one could argue that Batman should indeed kill the Joker. It is true that clearly killing him would reduce the Joker's happiness, and also that of Batman, since our hero would probably feel remorse for having carried out such an action. However, overall happiness would gain a lot in the long run, because any tragedies that the Joker would likely cause in the future would be avoided. However, Batman doesn't seem willing to kill the Joker. As previously mentioned, Batman refuses to kill because he believes that doing something like that would lower him to the moral standard of the criminals he is sworn to fight. I think there is something else behind this reasoning. If Batman considers that the simple act of killing is immoral, it is because the Dark Knight reasons that the morality of a given action depends, not on its consequences, but on the nature of the action itself. even. A typical utilitarian would be outraged. to Batman's conformity. Indeed, it would be your duty to preserve the well-being of as many people as possible. But Batman never teaches this lesson when it comes to the Joker. However, Batman does what he can for his own well-being. Utilitarian ethics involves an unpleasant consequence. If the individual finds themselves in a situation where their own death is necessary to save more lives – even if it is two lives – they will be forced to end their life. For example, in Batman Begins and comic book stories, it is repeatedly suggested that the existence of the super villain, the Joker, is due to.