this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
1055 points (97.4% liked)

memes

10233 readers
1170 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1055
It's important that he lives by a code (startrek.website)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yea, it’s always been weird to me that Batman alone is being judged for not using lethal force.

Batman is the focus of the narrative and the audience. Of course he will be the focus of the criticism. But technically yes, a lot of others in universe do also share responsibility for any further victims of the Joker. After a certain number of escape, spree, capture, escape, spree, etc cycles surely they must have realized he cannot be rehabilitated and will continue the remorseless mass killings until he dies.

or even proximity to him, be morally obligated to kill him?

This is a compelling idea for sure, and could definitely lead to interesting questions in other cases. Let's say the Joker has a body count of at least 1000 victims, how far back do you have to walk that number before such an obligation is no longer reasonable. Would a serial killer with 40 victims also be such a clear and present danger that they'd represent a moral imperative for their elimination? Or does it have to reach comic book levels of obscene?