Book Review: Batman and Philosophy ed. by Mark D. White and Robert Arp (2008)

Batman and Philosophy is part of a series of books that bring philosophical considerations to pop culture (other books in the series include The Simpsons and Metallica), and is a much more interesting way to study philosophy than reading the original works of Heidegger, Kant, or most other philosophers (it seems that being able to write and philosophize are mutually exclusive). What beats the combination of entertainment and education? As I checked out this book, the librarian told me that I would never see Batman the same. He was right. My favorite essay in it was the first, which asked the question of why doesn’t Batman just kill the Joker? The simple answer is because Batman doesn’t kill anyone intentionally, but is this morally best considering all the death and destruction he could prevent by ending the Joker? Another question is if it is moral to take in orphan boys, put them in tights, and teach them how to be crime-fighters. Many of these are questions I hadn’t considered about Bruce Wayne, Batman, and other comic book heroes. However, there were several things that made me feel like some of the writers were intellectual lightweights, particularly many of them having naïve views of the state. While considering Batman’s vigilantism, one author said that his punishment was illegitimate. Is it really not legitimate since he doesn’t carry a badge? Isn’t one of the problems of Gotham City its police corruption? Another statement that I found silly was that “we don’t want everyone to have police powers.” On the face of it, I totally agree with this statement, but not its implication: that we want some to have police powers. Police are allowed to do things that if done by anyone else would land them in jail. We have to depend on the police to police themselves, which is obviously not the case in Gotham. The contention that Batman’s real enemy is anarchy (if we use its proper definition of no state or “no ruler”) is also ridiculous. Being that Gotham is not an anarchic city with a market for police protection, but an ineffective and corrupt statist system for which Gothamites are forced to pay by taxation, Batman’s real enemy might be the government that reinforces the status quo. This surely leaves Batman favorable in my mind to Superman, who “because of his love for his adopted country, Superman recognizes the authority of the state,” and had tried to assassinate Batman because the state told him to do so. It is because of these statements that I discount many philosophers who think they question everything, but neglect to question the authority of the state. Beyond that, this book contains some interesting and profound insights, and I would suggest it if you maintain both an interest in philosophy and Batman.