Was the Joker Right in TDK?

[Mr. Holmes]

This is obviously an old topic, but I don't think I remember ever having an in-depth discussion or argument about it, so I thought I'd pose the question here. Is societal order really just an illusion? Are people, at their core, ready to abandon ethics for darwinian survival?

After all Batman had to make Joker lose by basically lying about what really happened to Dent.

[TZDEKA]

I don't think he was totally right or totally wrong. There are some people who obey the laws because they're the laws, and others who legitimately have a moral stake in it. I think Batman just did what he did to spare Gotham the loss of hope it might have learning the news of Dent as opposed to fearing it'd cause total anarchic Darwinism, and I think the whole thing with the ships was supposed to indicate the Joker wasn't totally right. He put them in a position to "eat each other" and they didn't do it.

[Last1oftheJedi]

Well, if we believe TDK, then we accept that no, at our core, we're all actually just trying to do the best we can. It's like Batman said, you're trying to do what? Prove deep down people are as evil as you? The answer was no. Joker doesn't accept this, because, well, he's nuts. But I agree with another nuts guy, Batman.
Deep down, we're just trying to do right. Sometimes, not everyone is abiding by this, but I think that's a minority, elsewise, things would be way worse than they are.
I'm not saying the world is perfect, but realistically, it's only a few bad apples that make a bunch look bad.
Also, while lying is IMHO the never the right answer, I think Bats felt that if people saw Havery as a criminal, it would take away a lot of hope. So, he took the blame, because the Joker already made him out to be a bad guy, and it was a quick fix.
Was there a better solution, not without a reveal of identity, which would've brought more havok to those he loved, screwed over his corporate influence so as Bruce he could continue to help Gotham the way his father did and would've wanted. So, he made the hard call. Took the bullet, so to speak.

[Mr. Holmes]

Was there a better solution, not without a reveal of identity, which would've brought more havok to those he loved, screwed over his corporate influence so as Bruce he could continue to help Gotham the way his father did and would've wanted. So, he made the hard call. Took the bullet, so to speak.

I'm not criticizing Batman for taking the fall. I'm saying that the fact that he had to do that for the Joker's mission to fail in a way shows that Joker isn't wrong.

[Dr. Hurt]

This is obviously an old topic, but I don't think I remember ever having an in-depth discussion or argument about it, so I thought I'd pose the question here. Is societal order really just an illusion? Are people, at their core, ready to abandon ethics for darwinian survival?

After all Batman had to make Joker lose by basically lying about what really happened to Dent.

The thing with Dent was to show that when a society is put to the test, most people will hold their virtue but some few wont. Like, not everywhere took to the streets in search for that accountant who the Joker wanted dead or he'd blow up a hospital. Some did. Some forgot their morals pretty easily.

And Dent was used as an opposite to Batman. They both lost Rachel but Batman didnt lose his mind or morality.

In real life though? I think even the good people would have tried to blow up the prisoners' boat. There's no way that both boats would just throw away the detonator. At least one of them would go for it.

[Last1oftheJedi]

I'm not criticizing Batman for taking the fall. I'm saying that the fact that he had to do that for the Joker's mission to fail in a way shows that Joker isn't wrong.

Okay, yeah, I see that. Joker did state without "hero Harvey", Gotham would lose hope. And that's exactly what Batman then was forced to prevent. You're right on that. I totally agree, thank you. You opened my eyes a bit, I appericate it. ^.^

[Reginleif]

This is obviously an old topic, but I don't think I remember ever having an in-depth discussion or argument about it, so I thought I'd pose the question here. Is societal order really just an illusion? Are people, at their core, ready to abandon ethics for darwinian survival?

After all Batman had to make Joker lose by basically lying about what really happened to Dent.

Ethics are actually Darwinian. feelings of empathy, compassion and acts of altruism are bred into our evolutionary framework. One of the philosophers I respect the most, is Thomas Hobbes, who was the first to put forward in Western thinking the 'Social Contract,' which is a though experiment where if there existed no bonds of fellowship, whether imposed by a state or by tradition, there would be a 'war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.' Because life in a society would be terrible without recognizing a law, Hobbes argued men would be in favor of sacrificing their liberties for security.

[Dr. Hurt]

Ethics are actually Darwinian. feelings of empathy, compassion and acts of altruism are bred into our evolutionary framework. One of the philosophers I respect the most, is Thomas Hobbes, who was the first to put forward in Western thinking the 'Social Contract,' which is a though experiment where if there existed no bonds of fellowship, whether imposed by a state or by tradition, there would be a 'war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.' Because life in a society would be terrible without recognizing a law, Hobbes argued men would be in favor of sacrificing their liberties for security.

You need to post that in the WW board where people are judging a society that is stuck in antiquity with 21st century western world standards.

[NotSuper]

In real life though? I think even the good people would have tried to blow up the prisoners' boat. There's no way that both boats would just throw away the detonator. At least one of them would go for it.

I think it depends. The situation was the prisoner's dilemma, and logically, both sides made the choice to optimize their position by not hurting the other.

[Rod G]

Okay, yeah, I see that. Joker did state without "hero Harvey", Gotham would lose hope. And that's exactly what Batman then was forced to prevent. You're right on that. I totally agree, thank you. You opened my eyes a bit, I appericate it. ^.^

But Gotham DID lose hope.

[Mat001]

No, it did lose Harvey himself. But it didn't lose the hope of a better tomorrow which is why Bruce and Jim covered up Harvey's actions. If it came out that Harvey went rogue because of the loss of Rachel and his disfigurement, Bruce feared that the city would go right back to where it was a year ago and might never recover. This is what takes us into "The Dark Knight Rises".

[Rod G]

No, it did lose Harvey himself. But it didn't lose the hope of a better tomorrow which is why Bruce and Jim covered up Harvey's actions. If it came out that Harvey went rogue because of the loss of Rachel and his disfigurement, Bruce feared that the city would go right back to where it was a year ago and might never recover. This is what takes us into "The Dark Knight Rises".

Considering how messed up Gotham is, Bats and Gordon might not have bothered . . .

[Choppa]

This has been discussed to death and is pretty obvious. I don't why so many people are confused by this.

Of course the Joker was right. That's why Batman took the wrap for Harvey's murders.