Freedomain Radio

 "Question: If you are forced into a situation of (a) blowing up X number of people through action or (b) blowing up X + Y number of people through inaction, why is it immoral to select (a)?"

Because in (b,) someone else is doing the blowing-up, so the immorality falls on him.  In (a,) you're the one doing the blowing-up, so the immorality falls on you.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} The movie was fantastic, and is one of my favorites of all time. Heath Ledger played Joker beautifully, and the rest of the cast was great. When it comes to the topic of anarchy within the movie, people will walk out of the movie twisting the plot and morality of the movie to fit their various beliefs. Statists will say that Joker was the embodiment of anarchy, and that we should use force in these terrorist situations. But I felt differently, even if it wasn't the intent  of the film maker. You see when Joker said "anarchy is chaos...people are inherently evil" you must realize that that is what a crazy individual like joker would think; you can't expect a insane person to view anarchy in the same way anarcho-capitalists do. He rationalizes his nihilism by stating that every else is inherently nihilistic, and if you've ever talked to a nihilist they always believe that man is inherently evil. I was bothered by how Batman treated the Harvey Dent situation by hiding the truth to create idol worship to be quite honest, but I still loved the movie, and have seen it twice and recommend everyone to see it.

The moral dimensions of this new batman movie are getting more fascinating. The Joker is dead, batman in jail.

Kevin you made excellent points. I don't think I thought it through when I posted the DRO thing. I think I agree with you on why I liked it. The realism factor, especially the joker, is what sets this movie WAY above other comic book/fantasy movies. The characters act as they would act in those situations. Their actions, however wild, are believable. 

GregG:

Not quite sure why, but I've got absolutely no desire to see this movie, whatsoever. Even the new Indy movie was more alluring than this - and that was pretty thin, itself...

 

When was the last time you had a desire to see a movie?

In (a), you're still a victim of a scenario that has been forced on you. Assuming away the possibility that Batman or the cops get to the Joker in time to thwart his plan, the obvious Nash equilibrium is to blow the other ship up ASAP.I'm not interested in views of morality, I'm only interested in self-preservation. Ethical systems that run counter to self-preservation are nothing more than maladaptive memes destined to weed themselves out of the population.

Hey Guys

Been great to get your replies.
The more I think about this the more anti-anarchy messages I see;

------SPOILER ALERT---------
"The hero gotham needs is harvey dent"
the scene where the joker threaten to blow up a hospital unless someone killed the guy on the interview
Delivering crooks to the police.

The interesting thing was that there was enough in there to warrent a discussion. Sort of like they didn't want to piss off anarchist too much (hey, we buy movie tickets too).

I enjoyed this movie a lot.

On the issue of how it depicts anarchy though, for most of the movie I had no problem with its morals. Batman was shown as a protecting force who only defended. He was a free service, no taxes, opposed to the police, etc. However, when Harvey Dent was viewed as a hero in the end, I think that was kind of government propaganda. You could argue that the people couldn't handle the truth, and so on, but they were just lying to put the government in a good light. So yeah...

First post. yay.

Spoiler Alert!!!

I personally thought the part where he was giving Harvey Dent the gun was pretty symbolic and representative of anarchy, though it makes me wonder if this film had any agenda at all because of some of the other stuff.

He said, "let me introduce a little anarchy into the equation" and then he gave Harvey Dent, who was otherwise powerless, the gun. That's what anarchy is, it's giving the gun to the people.

pcrs:

The moral dimensions of this new batman movie are getting more fascinating. The Joker is dead, batman in jail.

 

yes this is why batman is so interesting.  He is not an epic hero such as superman who is just an extention of society.  In the batman story he is BEYOND society, and society its self is neither good nor evil.

Nojus Arturas Namajunas:

 

 though it makes me wonder if this film had any agenda at all because of some of the other stuff.

 

 

Believe Christopher Nolan makes it a point to not have an agenda in most of his movies... he seems to mostly enjoy putting two concepts together and then enjoy the conflict.  I think the movie had mixed messages on purpose... I think he has a respect for the audience to think for them selves.

The only clear point to the movie that I saw is really the story of batman... the person that sets him self apart from society is the one that is capable of saving it.  Harvey dent was the "white knight" the person that tried to fix things with in the system... and I think its quite clear that he represented cyncism when he flips his coin and says "everything is up to chance alone"

But other then that I think Nolan mostly just enjoys concepts and having them interact with each other.

Brilliant, wrenching, gorgeous movie. Wow. Leger was beyond the call of incredible, and I do think there are some goodies in there for anarchists.

 *spoilers*

What I found most interesting about the movie, were the consequences for the *good* guys.  The Mayor's life is threatened.  Harvey Dent has to listen to his love die, and becomes Two-face.  Countless policemen are killed.  Others are forced to betray their friends for fear of harm to their loved ones.  Rachel Dawes is killed.  Gordon gets his family threatened.  His wife has to think he's dead.  He winds up having to hunt down his friend.  Bruce Wayne wants to retire as Batman, but he can't, and in addition his persona becomes a hated murderer.  While the movie is not actively painting a pretty picture for anarchy, the picture it paints for those involved in the legal system is downright gruesome.  This movie pulls no punches when it comes to consequences - no one gets a happy ending, not even the Joker.  :(

A very interesting theme that runs through the movie, which is left largely unresolved is the obscuring of truth.  It starts out innocently with Harvey's double headed coin.  Progresses a bit with Batman covering up for Harvey when he finds him beating the Jokers henchman.  Batman could have told Two-face that he went to save Rachel, but that the Joker had given him wrong directions.  Alfred burned the letter from Rachel, and while I'm positive there are others, there's the big one at the end, where Batman takes the fall for Two-faces murders.  It will be interesting to see how this stuff translates into the next movie.

I also thought the bit on the boat, where the people voted to blow up the other boat, but no individual could go through with it was kind of touching, really. :)

It's weird how so many people are fascinated with Ledger's character. I think it has to do with society having been raised as slaves. They need someone arrogant, aggressive and irrational to dominate them. It's sad.

Can you explain that some more Spratzaman?

Okay, here's a thing I published in my website: At first glance, you might think that the Joker was beyond the system, but was he really? It was his parents' fault that he grew up sick. And it's the government's fault that people manipulate each other, and parents manipulate their kids. How can the Joker be beyond the system, when he's in fact its bastard child. It produces terrorists like him, and they only feed its power. Because without criminals, there'd be no Po-Po. The Joker's horrible actions justify the Government's use of violence, which created him in the first place. The Joker is just a sado-masochistic patient. He creates danger for himself, because that's the only state in which he feels secure. Comparing Ledger's character to Kakihara from Ichi The Killer, we can see a lot of similarities. Batman is The Joker's greatest threat, just like Ichi is to Kakihara. Nothing feels better than confronting that danger. Kakihara is a much more realistic character, though, since they don't show him as an all-powerful figure. Instead, we see how easily his actions can be orchestrated by someone with an actual brain. So basically, people probably relate to the Joker because they admire his skills of manipulation and "assertiveness", because they grew up thinking these things are good. Otherwise, they'd realize their slavery.