The Moral Action of Bruce Wayne, Essay Example

In the history of human civilisation, there were various attempts to identify what moral was and what was not. As the historical reality proved, what is moral in one society, might be immoral for another. Even more, what is moral for one person is immoral for another. So, what is the problem with morality? Is the problem in a definition or is it with the approach to deeds which can be characterized as moral or not. Since, even theoretically, it is difficult to come to a common conclusion what is moral; in practice, moral deeds are even more complicated to identify. So, in order to understand a certain action, it should be analysed in terms of a certain theory or way of thinking. On the other hand, in order to understand the contemporary set of moral values and ethical dilemmas and what is considered to be ideal, one would have to look into popular culture. Today, even action movies have plenty of moral lessons to teach and ethical dilemmas to show. So, this essay is about analysis of one ethical dilemma from the movie “The Dark Night Rises” with Christian Bale featuring Batman. Bruce Wayne’s decision to become Batman again after 8 years of oblivion is analysed through Aristotle’s virtue theory.

The Situation of Bruce Wayne.

As we know from the previous movie, Bruce Wayne had to give up his role as a noble hero and protector of Gotham city, in order to preserve hope and belief in good virtues of Harvey Dent. In this context, the rationale for giving up Batman’s activity was to fight the crime with the name of law and order and not through unofficial means of Batman. In other words, fake hero was used as means to secure peace and order in Gotham City. Thus, it may be said that good name of Batman was sacrificed in the name of a greater and better cause. Although the city was cleared from obvious crimes, the structure itself and hidden crime remained, and young individuals were left without support or inspiration like Batman.

Another aspect of the situation, which had to be resolved, was the official position of Wayne’s Enterprise. Wayne’s isolation resulted in stagnation of his company and subsequent inability to finance charities like orphanages and social programmes. So, even through official means Bruce could no longer help people. In this context, it was another sign that his previous decision was counter-productive. One more aspect to consider is Bruce’s personal situation or rather his condition. In this context, due to the heavy feeling of guilt for the death of Rachel and that Batman was the reason for Joker and insanity of Harvey Dent; he became weak spiritually and physically. It seems that Bruce lost himself and will to live in general. He actually lost himself and reason for any kind of action. So, the problem of Batman concerning returning to his role as a hero or staying in proper shadow was conditioned by various considerations.

On the other hand, the actual ethical dilemma concerning his return is whether it is moral to fight greater evil with minor or less just means or his use of violence was resulting in more violence. So, probably, it was better for everyone if Batman and Bruce Wayne stayed in the shadow and did not take justice in their hands and played hero of this or the other kind. It is also important to understand, until which extent, it is moral and ethically correct to allow injustice to happen if you could have prevented it. Until which extent, personal grief and self-denial can be viewed as signs of morality and ethics? Maybe, it is simply immoral to take justice in one’s hands, and no matter what happens, justice should be conducted by public authorities whether they are involved or not. So, one person will be always compromised if he or she is taking justice and role of hero into his/hers hands.

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics.

The essence of Aristotle’s virtue ethics is a strong belief in human capacity to do good actions due to personal characteristics and rational reasoning. In this regard, a person conducts certain actions not out of duty or expectations but due to the personal virtues or personal character. In this context, virtues might mean the totality of personal positive features like nobility, self-consciousness, logical reasoning of one’s actions and critical realisation of one-self, understanding of general and particular justice, harmony, well-being and happiness. Due to personal qualities, an individual is the one to decide how to act. Since each person has different totality of personal qualities/virtues, certain action might be viewed as situational and individual. On the other hand, in terms of ethical judgement the action can still be evaluated in terms of excess of certain effect or its deficiency. According to Aristotle, the moral or ethical virtues are in the golden middle between two extremes. He says that a moral individual should aim at the middle and achieve a certain balance between too much and not enough. A moral individual should aim at beauty or kalos, which can be identified as harmony between two extremes.

From Aristotle’s perspective, emotions or akrasia are often counter-productive in moral matters since they become personal weaknesses on the way to beauty. Although Aristotle did not come with the set of exact virtues to be identified as moral, he outlined that nobility and sense of justice are crucial. General Justice might exist only in an ideal society while particular personal justice depends on human decisions and actions. Therefore, moral status of an action is identified by personal qualities or virtues of a person conducting the action. So motives are before actual consequences.

Batman from Aristotle’s perspective.

Looking at Bruce’s decision to come out of the shadow and return as Batman into Gotham City, it would be entirely justified by Aristotle and would be an example of an entirely moral and ethical action. First of all, Aristotle would consider Bruce’s previous decision to step down as personal emotional weakness, due to the feelings of guilt and the lack of purpose in life. In this context, he would say that the action to take Batman of streets was an act of extreme cowardice. From the point of the golden middle, taking responsibility for Rachel’s death and making subsequent actions – the extremes would be stepping down, as the highest weakness. On the other hand, killing everyone involved or using more violence against criminals might be an overcompensation of cowardice and, actually, its other degree. Thus, from Aristotle’s perspective, the rationale and morale decision in that situation would have been to continue fighting as Batman and face new challenges, no matter what. In other words, Bruce’s decision to return to Batman is, actually, the decision to resolve previously immoral and unethical problem – decision to leave. Aristotle would probably say that moral growth of the character was taking place, and that virtues of nobility and inner goodness were used in the balanced way and not as extremes.

Aristotle might also say that Bruce’s personality was growing, and he was becoming more virtuous because his decision to return as Batman was actually a sign of overcoming emotions and being driven only by personal virtues of reasoning. In this context, it can be said that previous decision to step down, as an extreme of cowardice, was dictated by emotions of guilt and responsibility for Rachel and all sins of Joker and other criminals, which he believed he had created. In this context, unethical decision to lie about Harvey Dent and true nature of Batman was because of the inability to think rationally and outside personal emotional dilemmas. It does not mean that Bruce did not have his virtues before; it only shows that his virtuous reasoning was foreshadowed by emotions. An ideal and moral individual should aim at the lack of emotions or their control. Thus, Bruce’s decision to return back as Batman was also moral because it was conducted not due to emotional motives; it was not even due to the duty that could have been imposed on him. It was because of his virtue of nobility and inner sense of good and wrong. Although he doubted himself on the path of self-exploration and inner doubts, he managed to make entirely moral and ethical decision in terms of Aristotle’s perception. He was driven by his virtue of nobility and understanding of kalos and not duty.

It is also important to say that this decision was moral also in terms of Bruce’s attitude to himself. It was not simply justice for the whole city that this decision was motivated by. Aristotle would say this decision was moral in respect to Bruce, as an individual, because it gave him an opportunity for virtues improvement and also resulted in his coming out of moral and physical stagnation. Having the aim again and giving up his grief, Bruce began to return to life and recover his spiritual world. Thus, Aristotle would again say that this decision was moral because it was in the balancing of one’s virtue and doing just to oneself and to others. Thus, the harmony was in healing oneself, before healing others.