Utilitarianism as an Ethical Theory in the Batman Films

The Dark Knight, directed, composed and produced by Christopher Nolan, the second movie in the Batman series. It stars Christian Bale as Batman, Heath Ledger as 'The Joker', Gary Oldman as James Gordon and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. This motion picture centers around two villains, Two-Face (Harvey Dent) and The Joker and how the storyline of Two-Face became. The motion picture is about how Batman has been helping alongside with James Gordon on keeping the crime rate in Gotham City down. A new face in town, The Joker, shows up. His sole reason for existing is to make turmoil. This motion picture has numerous examples of various moral issues. There are types of police dishonesty, loss of trust between people, battling for the greater good, and so on. In this specific case, it tends to be argued that The Joker imparts a type of utilitarianism on the residents of Gotham City.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory created by John Stuart Mill (Muscato, 2018). This theory is based on the belief that whatever provides the most happiness for the greater number of people is the best choice to make. Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is what Utilitarianism is all about. This theory believes that the outcome of an action legitimizes the ethical adequacy of methods taken to achieve that result and the aftereffect of actions exceed some other contemplations (Muscato, 2018). At the end of the day, Utilitarianist trust that end justifies the means or methods used. If an action ends with pleasure than it is morally right while it isn't right if an action reciprocates in pain. Losing one person to save people is okay according to utilitarianism because it will cause more happiness for a greater amount of people. For this theory consequences of an action are important, so the right choice maximizes happiness. Personal relationships are not in consideration when dealing with utilitarianism. It is wrong to help people out with considering the consequences in this ethical viewpoint.

Utilitarianism offers a generally clear technique for choosing the ethically right strategy for a specific circumstance a person may end up in (Business, 2018). To find what someone should do in any circumstance, one initially distinguishes the different blueprints that they could perform. Second, a person figures out the predictable advantages and damages that would result from each strategy for everybody influenced by the choice. Lastly, the strategy that gives the best advantages after the expenses have been considered is chosen.

If all the possible actions produce a positive net utility, or if some produce positive and some produce negative net utility, utilitarians play out the activity that delivers the best utility (Kymlicka,2017). On the off chance that all the possible outcomes produce a negative net utility, at that point they play out the one with the lower amount of negative utility. In outline, utilitarians play out that activity which delivers the best equalization of bliss over misery from the accessible options (Business, 2018). In this manner, the principal key idea of utilitarianism is that of augmenting utility or happiness.

In the movie Batman: The Dark Knight the Joker left the citizens in Gotham to make an ethical decision. Throughout the movie, the Joker is causing problems and Gotham city is suffering through robberies, murders, assassinations, and bombings. The Joker proclaims to the city that everyone must leave by taking the ferries. The ferries were there to evacuate the people in the city and prison inmates. The night that everyone was leaves, the Joker incapacitates two of the ferries that contain bombs leaving the people on the boat to decide to either destroy the other boat or have both boats explode at midnight by the Joker. This is making the prisoners or innocent people to make a choice that is morally achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The innocent people were contending among themselves that they would execute criminals that have committed rape and murder. Is there any valid reason why they should not kill convicts who as of now got their opportunity to spare their own lives? This putting the convicts into a place of being less ethically commendable. Whereas the boat loaded with convicts would not have had any issue murdering others to have their own life spared.

The critical contrast, one may argue, is that if each boat does nothing, the Joker will slaughter everybody on the two boats. While if a passenger pushes the button for the boat to explode, then they will be in charge of the deaths in a boat full of people. From a passenger’s perspective, one option makes them a killer, while the other only makes them an unfortunate casualty. Along these lines, under this view, the decision isn't between sparing more lives instead of sparing no lives, it is somewhat between killing individuals and not killing individuals.

Neither of the boats acted, and because of their ethical demonstrations, nobody was executed because the Dark Knight rescued them. Not one boat exploded which is presented as a victory for good and graciousness. However, this is simply amplifying the bloodshed. In the movie Batman’s demonstration of utilitarianism spares all residents, however on the off chance that he did not, there would have been numerous deaths. Whereas if one boat exploded then only half the lives would have been lost, conceivably those of inmates that as of now got their opportunity.

From the perspective of the people in the boat, they had no clue batman would spare them all. This would have made choices on both boats wrong, causing more extreme. Any normal individual would accept that the Joker would in all respects likely follow through on his guarantee and blow up the boats. If there was no Batman to spare the day, the choice that would have been for the greater good for the greatest number of individuals would have been for the residents to kill the prisoners. Badly as it sounds, it ultimately saves the lives of innocent people and killing the prisoners, rather than both boats of people dying. That would conclude in fewer losses and sparing the lives of hundreds for the greater good.

Batman's essential ethic is obviously utilitarian. He remains outside—and, on occasion, finished and against—the legitimate structures that keep the state from battling the offenders all alone terms, doing practically whatever is important to bring order to Gotham, regardless of whether that implies crippling criminals or breaking into a structure in Hong Kong and capturing a CEO. His utilitarianism isn't radical, nonetheless, yet berated by a lot of target limitations: he doesn't participate in torment, he declines to just acknowledge others' demises as vital results of his actions (even if it’s other hands), and he will not kill. The Joker's behavior incites an important internal conflict for Batman as he tries to hold two moral frameworks intact. From one perspective, he has invested in an extensively utilitarian position as legitimization for his vigilantism. Then again, he holds to an objectivist perspective on homicide and torment.

Most strikingly, Batman is persistent in declining to execute the Joker, even when it turns out to be progressively clear that the Joker is mentally insane. Batman deliberately clears out and crashes the Batpod to abstain from running over the Joker (where the Joker had assaulted a police convoy with RPGs just seconds prior). Toward the finish of the motion picture, he really protects the Joker from tumbling to his demise, after a fight between them. During the fight, the Joker says to him (while hanging by wire) “you won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won’t kill you because you’re too much fun!”

Batman does, in any case, attack Two-Face, off a high structure edge to his demise, but only when Two-Face has a gun on a kid's head. Doesn't this show Batman realizes that killing is at times important for the greater good? One may argue that killing Two-Face was important to stop harm to someone, while the Joker does not try to harm anyone when Batman could have killed him. One could contend that with Two-Face, Batman 'had no way out', in other words, no choice. However, it was one hundred percent possible that Two-Face would have killed the boy. Yet, it is similarly sure that the Joker would keep on unleashing destruction. Batman's reluctance to murder works as a kind of a flag to the audience that regardless of his other sketchy strategies, Batman is one of the heroes (just like the ship travelers). Maybe, however, The Dark Knight, at last, recognizes that rigid standards can't be effectively adjusted to an unpredictable good universe.

Naturally, utilitarianism has all the earmarks of being an incredibly alluring reasoning. It offers an effortlessness that numerous other philosophical methodologies need and specifically slices through the mess of good guidelines supported by deontological masterminds. While utilitarianism is as of now a mainstream moral theory, there are a few complications in depending on it as a sole technique for good basic decision making. To start with, the utilitarian calculation requires someone to allocate the qualities to the advantages and damages resulting from the actions and contrast them and the advantages and damages that may result from the different choice of action (Kymlicka, 2017). In any case, it's frequently troublesome, if certainly feasible, to gauge and look at the estimations of specific advantages and expenses. The capacity to quantify and to foresee the advantages and damages coming about because of action or an ethical standard is questionable, most definitely.

Another issue with utilitarianism is the mental impact it has on one individual (.Kymlicka, 2017). The utilitarian strategy is one where the great is characterized before the right. In the event that the results turn out bad, the individual with integrity is going to feel awful and believe that they did the wrong thing. A utilitarian will figure they made the best decision due to how the result seemed, by all accounts, to be before the actions happened. Utilitarianism can be very tedious and questionable. Utilitarianism is genuinely unpredictable rationality with heaps of misguided judgments.