Batman Begins: The Ethics of the League of Shadow

[RamistThomist]

I will start off by saying this movie rocked! Also, potential spoiler ahead.






How would you go about critiquing the ethics and view of Justice purported by the League of Shadows?

Ras a Gul:

Gotham's time has come. Like Constantinople or Rome before it the city has become a breeding ground for suffering and injustice. It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die. This is the most important function of the League of Shadows. It is one we've performed for centuries. Gotham... must be destroyed.

Ducard:

Only a cynical man would call what these people have "lives," Wayne. Crime. Despair. This is not how man was supposed to live. The League of Shadows has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years... We sacked Rome. Loaded trade ships with plague rats. Burned London to the ground. Every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of its decadence... We return to restore the balance

.

Now before you say the leage of shadows is bad because they are vigilantes (and I do maintain they are wrong), consider their goal and their argument:
save society and maintain justice. And they are wanting to take out an evil city and end crime and corruption, so to speak.

And it is not enough to condemn them on the grounds that a group of men do not have the moral authority to bring governments to justice. What is the United Nations? They are not techncially a nation. What gives them the right to call others to account? (I realize America is in the UN and that grieves me. We could have stronger moral ground if we told the UN to go to h3!! and then get out.)

I will try to offer a critique of the Lof Shadows. I only take the time to do this because there was much in their *ideals* that I resonated with. I also trained in martial arts and thought that was cool, too.

1. Their methods of executing their ideals violate just war theory.
2. Their methods kill indiscriminately. True, in wars and just wars, innocent people will die. But they die indirectly and by accident--never intentionally.
3. They failed to distinguish themselves from vigilantism (they tried, granted, but I wasn't persuaded).

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Really, it's an issue of authority. Who gave gave the League of Shadows authority to execute that justice? A civil magistrate has that authority from God. A solitary martial arts pajama party in the Himilayas does not.

 

[RamistThomist]

Really, it's an issue of authority. Who gave gave the League of Shadows authority to execute that justice? A civil magistrate has that authority from God. A solitary martial arts pajama party in the Himilayas does not.

agreed

martial arts pajama party

Believe it or not, when I was in Tae Kwon Do we used to have those all the time!

 

[brymaes]

How would you go about critiquing the ethics and view of Justice purported by the League of Shadows?

Their methods are hypocritical. They engage in theft, murder, extortion, drug dealing, etc. in order to stop all the theft, murder, extortion, and drug dealing.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ok, let's examine Batmans comment to the criminal...

"Don't swear to God, swear to me!"

 

[brymaes]

Ok, let's examine Batmans comment to the criminal...

He was teaching him not to violate the Third Commandment!

 

[Peter]

Really, it's an issue of authority. Who gave gave the League of Shadows authority to execute that justice? A civil magistrate has that authority from God. A solitary martial arts pajama party in the Himilayas does not.

What makes someone or some organization the civil magistrate. Why couldn't the League of Shadows just say they were the "civil magistrate." Isn't saying the LoS doesn't have authority b/c they are not the civil magistrate just begging the question? who is the civil magistrate?

 

[RamistThomist]

Peter raises a good point. The civil magistrate question is clear (sort of) on national polity, but what of international polity?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I appreciate the League of Shadows for this reason:

Batman Begins was a really good movie and they provided Batman with a host of criminal minds to defeat.

Your question is a good one, which points out how well written that movie was. It really adds to the texture and depth of the movie and makes it worth watching. I've been sorely disappointed with all previous versions of Batman and most other Super Hero movies that are formulaic or campy.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I appreciate the League of Shadows for this reason:

Batman Begins was a really good movie and they provided Batman with a host of criminal minds to defeat.

Your question is a good one, which points out how well written that movie was. It really adds to the texture and depth of the movie and makes it worth watching. I've been sorely disappointed with all previous versions of Batman and most other Super Hero movies that are formulaic or campy.

The Next installment will be The Dark Knight, and the Joker will be played by Heath Ledger. ??

 

[satz]

Peter raises a good point. The civil magistrate question is clear (sort of) on national polity, but what of international polity?

I suppose it might be possible to say that barring supremely extreme situations, whoever is the performing the role of government at the time is God's appointed ruler. Thus Jesus Christ approved of Ceasar's authority when tempted by the pharisees even though the romans were an occupying foreign power. And the Jews in the Old Testament incurred the wrath of God for rebelling against Nebuchchenezzar.

The fact that the jews in Jesus' time were using Ceasar's money was proof of a sort that his authority was the rightful one, as far as civil government goes. Hence in general whoever is performing the functions of the civil government at the time is the rightful civil magistrate.

 

[RamistThomist]

I suppose it might be possible to say that barring supremely extreme situations, whoever is the performing the role of government at the time is God's appointed ruler. Thus Jesus Christ approved of Ceasar's authority when tempted by the pharisees even though the romans were an occupying foreign power. And the Jews in the Old Testament incurred the wrath of God for rebelling against Nebuchchenezzar.

The fact that the jews in Jesus' time were using Ceasar's money was proof of a sort that his authority was the rightful one, as far as civil government goes. Hence in general whoever is performing the functions of the civil government at the time is the rightful civil magistrate.

Rebel militia groups can perform the functions of government in a region, especially if the government is weak. Does that make them legitimate?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Next installment will be The Dark Knight, and the Joker will be played by Heath Ledger. ??

I'm sorry, did you write something? I was lulled to sleep by your Avatar...Master...

 

[Larry Hughes]

In terms of authority the League of Shadow as its very name clearly suggests is a clandestine group that supposes worldly authority. Yet it is not in the least visible for that authority and in fact usurps sovereign visible national and local authority. Their self appointed trial and jury over Gotham not only violated that cities appointed authority, successful or not, but the sovereign authority of that state and the nation. E.g. if a group of terrorist suddenly got fed up with the debauchery of say Las Vegas (not picking on Vegas because from God’ view it could be a little self righteous city with no crime as well) and did what the League of Shadow did to Gotham, not only does it violate LV’s authority, but the State of Nevada and the sovereignty of the US.

Authority by its very nature MUST be visible else it is utterly pointless and no authority what-so-ever. A shadow or clandestine authority is a contradiction in terms. A hidden authority is open admission of no authority at all. Thus, the League of Shadow is ethically wrong and hypocritical from its inception regardless of its goals. Even a vigilante group makes themselves somewhat visible. Thus, the LoS is lesser morally than a vigilante group or even a terrorist who at least lays claim to their work however evil it may truly be.

They reveal their usurpation of authority when they say things like, “Every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of its decadence... We return to restore the balance”. This is an open admission of their high crime. Their crime is actually higher and greater than the decadence they pretend to be against. Secondly, what is their moral foundation or baseline upon which they conclude what the “pinnacle of its decadence” is? What is their calculus on this that would prove it is not utterly random? They reveal none except a wafty ‘wet finger in the wind’ superstitious statement like “pinnacle of its decadence” upon which they exercise their so called “moral good”. They have none. So, their “moral authority” is doubly proven false and is more like the random god’s of Baal, Greece and Rome than even an earthly “moral authority”. Such randomness is a high sign of anti-law rather than law even though it cloak itself in law and moral language.

L

 

[RamistThomist]

In terms of authority the League of Shadow as its very name clearly suggests is a clandestine group that supposes worldly authority. Yet it is not in the least visible for that authority and in fact usurps sovereign visible national and local authority. Their self appointed trial and jury over Gotham not only violated that cities appointed authority, successful or not, but the sovereign authority of that state and the nation. E.g. if a group of terrorist suddenly got fed up with the debauchery of say Las Vegas (not picking on Vegas because from God’ view it could be a little self righteous city with no crime as well) and did what the League of Shadow did to Gotham, not only does it violate LV’s authority, but the State of Nevada and the sovereignty of the US.

Authority by its very nature MUST be visible else it is utterly pointless and no authority what-so-ever. A shadow or clandestine authority is a contradiction in terms. A hidden authority is open admission of no authority at all. Thus, the League of Shadow is ethically wrong and hypocritical from its inception regardless of its goals. Even a vigilante group makes themselves somewhat visible. Thus, the LoS is lesser morally than a vigilante group or even a terrorist who at least lays claim to their work however evil it may truly be.

They reveal their usurpation of authority when they say things like, “Every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of its decadence... We return to restore the balance”. This is an open admission of their high crime. Their crime is actually higher and greater than the decadence they pretend to be against. Secondly, what is their moral foundation or baseline upon which they conclude what the “pinnacle of its decadence” is? What is their calculus on this that would prove it is not utterly random? They reveal none except a wafty ‘wet finger in the wind’ superstitious statement like “pinnacle of its decadence” upon which they exercise their so called “moral good”. They have none. So, their “moral authority” is doubly proven false and is more like the random god’s of Baal, Greece and Rome than even an earthly “moral authority”. Such randomness is a high sign of anti-law rather than law even though it cloak itself in law and moral language.

L

Well said, Larry. But you have to admit, Liam Neeson made a better villain than Jim Carrey!

 

[Larry Hughes]

Oh yea, waaaay coooler!

 

[tewilder]

I suppose it might be possible to say that barring supremely extreme situations, whoever is the performing the role of government at the time is God's appointed ruler. Thus Jesus Christ approved of Ceasar's authority when tempted by the pharisees even though the romans were an occupying foreign power. And the Jews in the Old Testament incurred the wrath of God for rebelling against Nebuchchenezzar.

The fact that the jews in Jesus' time were using Ceasar's money was proof of a sort that his authority was the rightful one, as far as civil government goes. Hence in general whoever is performing the functions of the civil government at the time is the rightful civil magistrate.

Here is another view:

http://www.contra-mundum.org/pc/PC1-11.pdf

What Happened To The Daily Newspaper Abraham Kuyper Founded?

Abraham Kuyper in his prime, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, founded a daily newspaper and gave it the name, De Strandaard, which corresponds to the English strandard in the sense of a battle flag, or ensign or regimental colors. De Standaard was the Calvinist daily standard fluttering at the head of the Calvinist religious forces in the Netherlands.

De Standaard is not published anymore. It had a policy during World War I1 which was its undoing. After occuption of the Netherlands by Hitler De Standaard followed a policy of "not resisting the lawful government." What was that 'lawful government" (wettige orerheid) ? Hitler's occupational army! That policy
of nonresistance to Hitlerian Germany caused great injury to the struggling underground resistance movement.

When the regular Dutch government was restored, it prohibited the continuation of the publication of De Standraad on the ground of its dubious conduct during World War II.

We consider that to be a disgraceful ending for a once-famous Dutch Calvinist daily newspaper, founded by a devout and well-intentioned man.

The opposite idea of resistance is collaboration. Was collaboration necessarily the result of disloyalty or treachery? We do not believe that that follows. We do not consider our Dutch Calvinist brethren to have been quislings - by intent.

Behind their tragic nonresistance policy, which in effect became collaboration with Hitler, was a pious, erroneous idea. That idea was that the powers that be must be obeyed because they are "ordained of God." Hitler was not to be resisted because he was ordained of God. What an idea!

 

[satz]

I certainly didn't mean to imply it would be wrong to resist and invading army. I said what I did in the context of the original question, which was a vigilante organisation plotting to overthrow a city. I maintain that IN GENERAL it is almost always possible just by common sense to tell who is the civil magistrate and who is not. Situations of war would obviously not fall under that general category.

 

[tewilder]

I certainly didn't mean to imply it would be wrong to resist and invading army. I said what I did in the context of the original question, which was a vigilante organisation plotting to overthrow a city. I maintain that IN GENERAL it is almost always possible just by common sense to tell who is the civil magistrate and who is not. Situations of war would obviously not fall under that general category.

So would you say that Hitler was the legitimate government in Germany, which he did not invade, but not in the Netherlands, because he invaded it?

What about France, where there was a deal with the French and the Vichey government was set up?

 

[satz]

With regards to Hitler, I have to admit I have no idea. I would maintain that such a situation is an extreme one outside the realm of the normal.

I am not familiar with the Vichey governments facts so I won't hazard to comment.

 

[Timothy William]

Much as I hate to say it, Hitler was the head of the legitimate government in occupied Netherlands during WWII. We simply have no moral or Scriptural authority to decide that a particular ruler is so bad that they are not the legitimate government. We can peacefully refuse to co operate with bad government, we can refuse to obey immoral laws, but we cannot decide for ourselves that the government over us is illegitimate.