By: Francis Martinez
Christopher Nolan’s box office hit, The Dark Knight, has everything from action to romance to tragedy to…utilitarianism? Yes ladies and gentlemen, you did indeed read that correctly. Now, what on earth could Batman have anything to do with utilitarianism and, more specifically, with what John Stuart Mill has to say about said topic? Batman always tries to do what is best for the majority of the people, although his actions do not necessarily always end up being the best for the happiness of all. Thus, Batman may seem like the poster boy for the concept of utilitarianism, but throughout the film there is more than one occasion in which it seems that Batman and the rest of the citizens of Gotham are anti-utilitarianism.
In John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, he defines utilitarianism as actions that are “right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”[1] In a utilitarian society, all of its citizens’ actions would have to be for the greater good because anything less of that would lead to some citizens’ unhappiness which is clearly not what Mill implies in his writings. Every action done must be to promote happiness i.e. the general welfare of everyone in society so that they can coexist happily with one another. In regards to The Dark Knight, there are perhaps, two key instances in which the audience sees that Batman and two other distinct groups of people are faced with a choice that will have essentially an effect on every individual that live in Gotham City. Let’s look at these two instances and see how they piece into Mill’s explanation of utilitarianism.
In the movie Batman is faced with having to save either the woman he loves (Rachel Dawes) or the man that could potentially lead Gotham City to a safer and crime free future (Harvey Dent). Batman of course, being the morally and utilitarian driven person that he is, decides to save the latter with his rationale being that Harvey Dent will be of greater use in the process of promoting actions that will point everyone towards the road of happiness. John Stuart Mill would be in accordance with Batman’s actions in saving Harvey Dent because he says that “the multiplication of happiness is…to be a public benefactor…on these occasions alone is he called on to consider public utility.”[1] Batman puts Mill’s theory of utilitarianism to practice when he makes the decision to save Harvey Dent, Gotham’s district attorney, believing that Dent will do everything in his power to rid the city of all its villains. It is important to mention that Batman’s plan does not quite go as well as he had hoped, because truth of the matter is that by saving Harvey Dent, he only made things worse for Gotham City. Turns out, Dent sets out with vengeful attitude and begins killing all those who he thinks have betrayed him. That could not possibly be in accordance with Mill’s theory that every action is right as long as it leads to happiness and it certainly shows that Batman’s rationale when saving Dent is completely and utterly disproved.
Now comes the real question…what if Batman had chosen to save the woman he loved, Rachel Dawes? Mill could have potentially been relatively accepting of this alternate choice if and when the individual choosing, in this case Batman, was not being called to be a “public benefactor”.[1] Being Gotham City’s hero however, complicates this for Batman because, by being Batman, the occasion is rare when he is not being called to be a public benefactor. Mill also makes the claim of “private utility” and how, in all of the other occasions on which an individual is not being called to be a “public benefactor” there is such a thing as “private utility” in which “the interest or happiness of some few persons, is all he has to attend to.”[1] Sure, we can idolize Batman all we want for being a hero and for always choosing to do what is best for the majority of the people as long as it leads to happiness but if we were to apply that same principle in our world, chances are it simply would not work. A real world example of how this concept of doing what is best for all as long as it leads to happiness is the bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The end of the World War II brought many things, among these was the surrender of Germany but the United States was still fighting a Pacific war with Japan. The United States had to take a drastic measure, such as dropping an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan, in hopes of leading the Japanese towards surrender.[2] Let it not be a surprise that after shortly after another bombing on Nagasaki, the Japanese surrendered, giving the United States the victory they had so desperately sought. Now, it is up to every individual to come to their own conclusion about whether or not these bombings were for the greater good of society and their happiness. One such conclusion could be that, yes, the bombings were for the greater good and for the ultimate happiness of the American people so that they would no longer be fighting a war. The United States bombed these cities with the intention of gaining Japan’s surrender in order to win the war and have its citizen’s stop putting in their entire souls to the war effort. Because, surely, no one could ever possibly be happy if they are constantly contributing everything they have and working endlessly in order to support its country in time of war. Perhaps it is safe to say that Mill’s utilitarianism stance would not apply in this situation, considering the action of bombing cities does not necessarily provide happiness if you are on the unfortunate side of the situation presented.
Let’s go back to Batman and the second occasion in which Mill’s concept of utilitarianism presents itself. However, in this instance it is the citizens of Gotham City that must come to a consensus about the choice they have to make, which could potentially affect the happiness of the whole of society. The film’s villain, the Joker, has filled two ferryboats with explosives; one of the ferryboats is carrying ordinary citizens while the other is carrying criminals.[3] The Joker gives the two an ultimatum, blow up the other boat before midnight or have both boats blown up at midnight. Here you have a group of normal, day-to-day individuals that justify blowing up the other boat filled with convicts because they believe that nothing good can come of them. The individuals on this one boat believe that they have more to offer to the world than the criminals of the other boat. Surely Mill would agree that their action of blowing up the other boat can be justified because, after all, their action was intended to promote and eventually lead to happiness. What about the criminals on the other boat? Well, you would think that being convicted murderers, robbers, etc., they would have no problem blowing up the other boat and they would definitely not feel guilty. Why is it then that neither one of the boats can bring themselves to blow up the other one if, by blowing up the other boat not only would they be saving their own lives, but they would have their action justified because they would be doing it for the better of everyone? The answer is simple. Neither of the groups of people on the boats, respectively, can bring themselves to murder all of the people on the other, even if it means that by doing so, they would be saving their own lives. It no longer becomes a question of whether or not the action will lead to happiness for whoever ends up living, but rather a question of whether or not the individuals actually believe they are doing the right thing for the happiness of the majority of the people.
John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism consists of people and the actions they make and whether or not those actions will promote happiness and well-being. In Batman’s defense, he really does attempt to do what is best for all, even if it means compromising one thing for the good of another. This, however, cannot ever truly be effective because in the end, even with actions that promote happiness; there will always be someone who gets the short end of the stick.
Works Cited
- Utilitarianism.com,. 2014. ‘John Stuart Mill’. Accessed June 26 2014. http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm.
- A+E Networks. “Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” History.com. http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki (accessed June 26, 2014).
- The Dark Knight. DVD. Directed by Christopher Nolan. Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video, 2008.
Bradley, Drew. “Caped Crusader or Dark Knight.” Photograph. 2014. Moviepilot.com,
http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/04/02/caped-crusader-or-dark-knight-1312122?lt_source=external,manual#!4QCfV (accessed June 27, 2014).
Bear Market 