Image citation: Superheroes Comics, licensed under Unsplash
“Batman stands for something more important than the whims of a terrorist…even if everyone hates him for it. That’s the sacrifice he’s making: he’s not being a hero. He’s being something more.” (Alfred Pennyworth)
The author grew up watching Justice League of America (JLA). The show centred around a group of complex superhumans with extraordinary abilities, with the notable exception of Batman, who united in the face of a formidable threat, in this case, an invasion by the Appellaxians, an alien race from the planet Appellax.
The core members of the JLA include: Superman, Batman, Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Martian Manhunter. Batman and Superman, in particular, helped the others defeat the Apellaxians (an alien race). While they created an organisation that would fend off similar threats by fully exploiting their gifts, something which a superhero usually does, however, a more accurate characterisation of their role would be that of vigilantes, as they often operated outside the confines of traditional law enforcement to uphold justice and protect the innocent.
Batman stands out as one of the most recognisable figures among superheroes. His journey began with the tragic loss of his parents, Thomas and Martha Wayne, who were murdered during a mugging in Crime Alley. This event motivated young Bruce to dedicate his life to justice, training rigorously to ensure that no one else would suffer a similar fate. Driven by a desire to prevent such tragedies, he adopted the mantle of Batman, vowing to protect Gotham City from crime and injustice.
Batman primarily operates in Gotham City, a fictional place known for its deep-rooted corruption. The imminent decay within the city makes it challenging for traditional authorities to address the rampant injustices, compelling Batman to fight these battles outside the system as the Caped Crusader.
In JLA and their exploits on Earth as well as other planets and other dimensions fighting “villains,” invaders, conquerors, and thieves in their outer space missions, a common theme arises throughout the series. The ethical dilemma surrounding their actions revolves around whether their vigilantism is justified in the fight against injustice, if they should continue their efforts despite potential consequences, or if they ought to submit to the authorities and trust the established legal system. This pervades a moral ambiguity, prompting both the heroes and the audience to question the legitimacy of their methods and the consequences of their interventions. Their activities are often permitted and sanctioned by authorities, in most cases by the US government and sometimes international authorities. This official endorsement creates an expectation for the JLA to act within legal boundaries; if they overstep, they risk accountability from the government.
While their activities are sanctioned, they were not always sanctioned. The government likely sanctioned the group out of pragmatism. It is much easier to control a group when you are on better terms rather than antagonising each other. One can understand their worry. There is a sword of Damocles hanging over these authorities, which is what happens when these vigilantes’ actions are no longer sanctioned. In other words, if the group gets out of control, it would pose a huge threat to the US government and mankind. From the government’s low-risk point of view, one can understand their preoccupation. This is probably why Amanda Waller, a powerful government official, was able to make a career, building failsafes against the Justice League. She built and organised operations like Suicide Squads to stop Superman if he were to threaten the US government and other similarly existential threats.
Batman shares a concern similar to Amanda Waller’s regarding the immense power of the Justice League. He worries that if the League were ever to be brainwashed or mind-controlled, the potential for catastrophic damage would be unimaginable. This perspective aligns with his role as a vigilante, emphasizing the need for caution and accountability.
While Amanda Waller’s intentions may appear noble, her strategies often lead to increased government control and intervention. In contrast, Batman’s motivations are rooted in pure altruism; his actions are guided by higher principles of justice that ultimately serve the greater good. Rather than seeking to eliminate threats, Batman aims to immobilize the JLA if necessary, adhering to his belief that neither individuals nor the state have the right to kill.
By protecting those who cannot defend themselves from formidable forces—such as a mind-controlled Justice League—Batman fulfils his duty as a vigilante. His commitment to justice is not self-serving; it reflects a deep sense of responsibility to safeguard humanity from potential abuses of power, including the very heroes he stands alongside.
In Anarchy, State and Utopia, author Robert Nozick explores the distinction between moral and immoral actions, as well as permissible and impermissible ones. The critical distinguishing factor he identifies is whether an action is motivated by a moral purpose rather than merely a desired outcome. Applying this framework to vigilantism, it becomes evident that such actions can be considered permissible in contexts of self-defence or the defence of others. However, vigilantism should not serve as a means for individuals to pursue personal or political agendas simply because they feel justified in doing so.
Furthermore, philosopher Ralf Bader shows that one of the considerations that should be taken into account for the vigilantes is the level of proportionality. When responding to a call for help, a vigilante’s response should be proportionate to the threat they are confronting. Through a proportional response to unjust forces, the vigilante remains permissible. This means neutralising the threat, although what level of response remains one of the most difficult questions in libertarianism.
However, if a vigilante were to overreact significantly, employing excessive force beyond what is necessary to neutralise the threat posed by a wrongdoer, they risk becoming another perpetrator of wrongdoing themselves. While vigilantes do not require official sanction from governing authorities, they should adhere to essential principles such as proportionality. This principle ensures that their response effectively neutralises the attack without escalating violence unnecessarily.
Ralf Bader also points out that vigilantism is generally considered permissible in terms of the proximity to sanctioned officials. For example, imagine that you find yourself in a dark alley and somebody tries to rob you. In this context, vigilante intervention would likely be welcomed and generally permissible. A government should not prohibit individuals from defending themselves or being defended against violent threats that the government cannot or will not prevent.
For instance, the Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made the suggestion, in the Bruen case, that buildings such as courthouses and airports and planes, places protected by armed guards and magnetometers should prohibit individuals from carrying firearms inside. These areas are so heavily guarded and protected that individuals carrying firearms adds to the level of risk rather than adding a level of safety. The government has exerted herculean efforts to tightly control these environments. They have gone through the trouble to make enough assurances where they have essentially eliminated the need for personal self-defence.
These are places where the government can guarantee your safety. They are the exception not the rule. Therefore there must be lots of other places where the government cannot guarantee your safety let alone protect you from a violent crime. Much like this allows for self-defence it also allows for vigilantes.
Vigilantism cannot be reduced to a simple binary of good versus evil. Instead, it is important to recognize that when executed proportionately, vigilantism aims to protect individual rights without infringing on the rights of others. In this context, the vigilante acts to halt aggression rather than employing aggression to further their own agenda. Moreover, vigilantism should only be considered when there is no reasonable expectation or capability for an official third party to intervene and prevent acts of aggression. In this way, vigilantism serves as an extension of self-defence, responding to threats when formal mechanisms fail to provide protection.
While many may view Superman as the more appealing vigilante, Batman actually embodies a more desirable model for what we should seek in a vigilante. He operates with clear principles and boundaries, responding proportionately to threats in situations where law enforcement is unable or unwilling to act. Unlike Superman, whose battles often result in widespread destruction and collateral damage, Batman’s approach minimizes harm to the city and its inhabitants.
Additional resources for readers:
- The Philosophy of Batman
- The Philosophy of the Dark Knight:The Philosophy of the Dark Knight
- How was the JLA formed?
