Compare And Contrast Utilitarian And Batman

969 Words 4 Pages
John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the best decision is the one that brings the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism focuses on the outcome and consequences of the decisions. It also focuses greatly on the fact that all persons should be considered equally, including oneself. So, an individual’s personal happiness counts toward the outcome as well, but no more than any other person. There are five elements used to calculate the greatest amount of happiness: pleasure minus pain, intensity, duration, fruitfulness, and likelihood. Let’s examine the Joker’s situation and plug it into the five elements used to calculate the greatest amount of happiness. If Batman kills …show more content…
Kantian ethics also focuses on actions and intentions, instead of focusing on the outcome of these actions and its benefits. Unlike Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics doesn’t care to maximize happiness, but rather to be worthy of happiness. Also under Kantian ethics, a person actions can only be moral if it is based upon a universal principle. I think that Kant would allow Batman to kill the Joker. I think this because the Joker’s actions and intentions are to commit acts of crime and to terrorize people. He is a villain and he likes and takes pride in being a villain. If he is content with wanting to hurt people and cause chaos, then he isn’t a moral person. Also, a universal principle that almost everyone knows and is aware of is to not cause intentional harm to others. As we already know, the Joker causes harm to others, whether it be physical or emotional harm, intentionally. Most importantly, I think that the Joker isn’t worthy of happiness because of all of the harm that he has caused and for all of the crimes that he has committed. So, I think that Kant would think that the Joker isn’t deserving of the happiness that he could feel for being alive. Lastly, the Joker is treating people merely as a means every time he commits a crime. For example, the Joker has tried to get rid of Batman several times. While trying to get rid of Batman, the Joker sometimes hurts innocent people in the process. In this situation the Joker is treating those innocents merely as a means to an end and not as ends in themselves because he is hurting them so that he can get to the Batman. Under all of these observations, I think that Kant would say that society is better off letting the Joker

Related Documents