A consequentialist ethical theory known as utilitarianism holds that an action’s morality is decided by its repercussions (Quiambao, 2022). While seeking to enhance joy and curb distress, one must pick the deed that maximizes pleasure and limits displeasure. This influential theory concerning the assessment of actions and policies by the total sum of individual well-being that was advanced and enhanced through the works of distinguished philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill has commonly had its origins connected back to those thinkers who further expounded on the underlying concept (Binmore, 2021. Utilitarianism has several basic concepts that make it interesting, convincing, and helpful in examining moral judgments.
The core principle of utilitarianism holds that maximizing collective welfare determines moral righteousness, such that conduct earning maximum overall pleasure receives admiration while actions birth most collective distress merit condemnation. One can decide if a principle upholds well-being by assessing how actions might affect emotional creatures’ welfare.
Utilitarianism is defined by its insistence on impartiality in considering all individuals’ happiness and suffering, whether one’s own or another’s, without privileging any single person or exclusive club above others in calculating the most significant overall benefit (Hayry, 2021). This commitment to impartiality and the universality of the theory’s ethics emphasize its dedication to promoting the greater welfare of all people.
Additionally, utilitarianism recognizes that not all pleasures are equal. Mill distinguished between the happiness of intellect and morality versus those of a more bodily and fleeting kind, categorizing the former as higher and lower (Beaumont, 2021). Utilitarianism supports that developing a taste for more refined delights increases human welfare to a higher degree and should take precedence over momentary satisfactions, as the former pleasures are thought to instill lives with more profound meaning and richer fulfillment.
Applying utilitarian theory to Batman as depicted in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, we analyze specific instances from the film demonstrating how his actions as the caped supporter maximize overall happiness for Gotham’s citizens despite potentially violating individuals’ rights or freedoms.
As the dark vigilante stalks the wicked in Gotham at night, Bruce Wayne also channels his wealth and intellect as the billionaire industrialist by day in an eternal crusade against the injustice that first forged his dual identity. By getting into the mantle of Batman, he aims to be a beacon of reassurance for the guiltless while shielding them from harm through his nightly patrols of Gotham’s dangerous streets. His activities frequently place him in moral binds where he must make challenging decisions to defend justice in a lawless city.
In facing the disturbed Joker’s unreasonable acts of terror, Batman struggled with an agonizing moral challenge as he pursued the diabolical criminal’s unwelcoming destructive agenda. The increasingly disturbed criminal’s assaults on Gotham’s vulnerable civilians compel the Dark Knight to choose between capturing the dangerous enthusiast before further blood is spilled and permitting his continuing brutal control of fear to spread without restraint. Utilitarianism can shed light on this decision.
Utilitarianism would argue that Batman should capture the Joker because doing so would likely maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. If the Joker were left to act without consequence, it would inevitably result in chaos, loss of life, and affliction being visited upon the good people of Gotham, whereas bringing this awful rogue to justice could once more establish calmness and secure protection for all residents of the city. Batman’s actions align with the utilitarian principle of promoting the greater good, even if it means resorting to morally ambiguous tactics.
As the threat of Gotham falling under Bane’s command continued to escalate, Batman grappled with the hellish option of sacrificing thousands to save millions by exploding the bomb now within the terrorist’s grasp, hoping to end the crisis by any means while still holding firm to the ideals that defined him. Utilitarianism would again support Batman’s decision to take action. Due to the Dark Knight’s courageous choice to explode the bomb, regardless of the danger to his health, Gotham was spared from losing millions of lives as Batman prioritized protecting every resident over any concern for his safety.
Utilitarianism helps us understand Batman’s character better by highlighting his commitment to the greater good, even when it requires personal sacrifices and morally challenging decisions. Batman’s actions align with the utilitarian principle of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering on a large scale. While Batman’s character can stimulate considerations of utilitarianism’s constraints, it bears emphasizing that his actions also provoke deeper questioning into utilitarianism’s potentially troubling implications when taken to an extreme. His vigilantism and willingness to bend ethical norms for the more significant good challenge the idea of impartiality and the pursuit of higher pleasures. Batman’s concealed acts of deception and force, which may sometimes diverge from a utilitarian assessment of the costs and benefits of singular deeds, are routinely geared toward greater welfare.
In conclusion, utilitarianism furnishes a compelling lens for evaluating the ethical mysteries confronting Batman across Christopher Nolan’s gripping “Dark Knight” trilogy; alternative viewpoints warrant consideration. By exploring the intricacies of his character and weighing the intricate decisions required in pursuit of justice, one gains a more profound respect for the tribulations. While Batman’s actions may sometimes push the boundaries of utilitarian ethics, his ultimate goal remains to promote overall happiness and minimize suffering in Gotham City. Utilitarianism is a valuable tool for understanding the moral dimensions of this iconic character’s journey.
References
Beaumont, T. (2021). JS Mill on Higher Pleasures and Modes of Existence. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 21(62), 251-268. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=986354
Binmore, K. (2021). Jeremy Bentham versus John Stuart Mill. Imaginary Philosophical Dialogues: between Sages down the Ages, 95-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65387-3_18
Häyry, M. (2021). Just better utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000882
Quiambao, J. E. A. (2022). Thinking ethically: The utilitarianism approach in moral decision making. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Enviro-Quiambao/publication/363003931_Thinking_ethically_The_utilitarianism_approach_in_moral_decision_making/links/633a53139cb4fe44f3f6121a/Thinking-ethically-The-utilitarianism-approach-in-moral-decision-making.pdf
write