Robbins Library Notes

Good morning, readers!

Many readers are likely familiar with the hype and news surrounded the latest Batman move, The Dark Knight, which opened recently in theaters.  For those who don’t know, the action of the movie centers on Batman, played by Christian Bale, and several other characters trying to capture and stop the psychopath, the Joker, played with disturbing perfection by the late Heath Ledger.

While doing my usual morning sweep of the newspapers last Friday (25 July 2008), I found a fascinating editorial in the Boston Globe, “Should Batman kill the Joker?”   Written by Mark D. White and Robert Arp, co-editors of Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul, the editorial explores the arguments for and against Batman’s killing the Joker from several philosophical perspectives.

Before readers roll their eyes and ask, “Why is he even mentioning this on his blog? After all, what does pop culture have to do with philosophy?*  Isn’t this just some silly post-modern attempt to make philosophy ‘relevant’ by being trivial?”

These are valid criticisms, but I ask those who voice them for their indulgence and patience for a moment.  I’ll argue, agreeing ultimately with White and Arp, that pop culture, well-used, can provide some interesting thought experiments in which to examine and discuss abstract philosophical points and concrete, real-world philosophical issues.

White and Arp note towards the beginning of the editorial:

Pop culture, such as the Batman comics and movies, provides an opportunity to think philosophically about issues and topics that parallel the real world. For instance, thinking about why Batman has never killed the Joker may help us reflect on the nation’s issues with terror and torture, specifically their ethics.

White and Arp then proceed to examine whether Batman might kill the Joker by considering three ethical perspectives: utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.  They conclude by saying:

Taking these three ethical perspectives together, we see that while there are good reasons to kill the Joker, in terms of innocent lives saved, there are also good reasons not to kill him, based on what killing him would mean about Batman and his motives, mission, and character.

However, there’s more to this examination than mulling over what a fictional comic-book character should or should not do:

The same arguments apply to the debate over torture: While there are good reasons to do it, based on the positive consequences that may come from it, there are also good reasons not to, especially those based on our national character. Many Americans who oppose torture explain their position by saying, “It’s not who we are,” or “We don’t want to turn into them.” Batman often says the same thing when asked why he hasn’t killed the Joker: “I don’t want to become that which I hate.”

In other words, by using the hypothetical “Should Batman kill the Joker?” thought experiment, we can, by extension, examine difficult, emotional topics like torture.  This is White and Arp’s conclusion, and one with which I agree:

Applying philosophy to Batman, South Park, or other pop culture phenomena may seem silly or frivolous, but philosophers have used fanciful examples and thought experiments for centuries. The point is making philosophy accessible, and helping us think through difficult topics by casting them in a different light.

Regardless of your position, torture is an uncomfortable and emotional topic. If translating the core issue to another venue, such as Batman and the Joker, helps us focus on the key aspects of the problem, that can only help refine our thinking. And Batman would definitely approve of that.

Definitely read the whole editorial.  I think you will find it thought-provoking, even if you may not agree with using pop culture in philosophical discussions.

*Those interested in the general topic of pop culture and philosophy might want to check out my earlier post on pop culture and philosophy. For another take on the movie as a modern morality play, please click here. 

Update 8/5/2008: The Dark Knight is generating a lot of commentary and analysis, which you can read about here, here, here, here, here, here, and here — more proof that pop culture can be used to analyze and discuss important philosophical issues.  (Please note that I do not endorse some of these interpretations. I offer them only to show the breadth of discussion surrounding the movie.)

Good afternoon, readers! It’s time for the latest posting of podcasts from Philosophy Bites:

• “Jonathan Wolff on Marx on Alienation“
• “Peter Singer on Using Animals“
• “Chandran Kukathas on Hayek’s Liberalism“
• “Richard Reeves on Mill’s On Liberty“
• “David Miller on National Responsibility“

Enjoy!

Hello, readers!

The latest issue of Inquiry has arrived — Inquiry 51(2) April 2008 — and the issue may be of interest to many:

• “Distributive Justice and Welfarism in Utilitarianism,” Jörg Schroth (University of Göttingen)
• “Gödel, Kant, and the Path of a Science,” Srećko Kovaĉ (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb, Croatia)
• “Hegel’s Account of Rule-Following,” David Landry (University of North Carolina)
• “Husserl, Phenomenology, and Foundationalism,” Walter Hopp (Boston University)

Click on the link above to access the electronic version of the journal, using your Harvard ID and PIN. Make sure to choose the “Informaworld Journals” link to view it, as you won’t be able to access it via Academic Search Premier or Business Source Complete until May 2009.