|
|
Post by The Pumpkin King on Mar 15, 2020 12:22:25 GMT
Batman won't actively murder someone, but that does not mean he necessarily considers himself to be under an obligation to save everyone who needs saving. And he's not averse to endangering (bad) people. How many people died back in Tibet when he destroyed Al Ghul's base, for example? The truth is that Batman is always morally compromised. He breaks many laws and injures many people (often brutally). If necessary, he's shown himself willing to torture his opponents. And he is aware of his morally compromised position, as is made evident by his strong desire to have Harvey Dent succeed him as Gotham's true "White Knight" in The Dark Knight. What I agree with. Ra's Al Ghul was ready to die for his cause and I think would have tried his last best attempt to take Batman down with him for if Batman tried to save him. Batman didn't directly kill him, Ra's Al Ghul killed himself as soon as he decided to destroy Gotham. Batman saved the city, Ra's was an ethical casualty of war. I wouldn't have cared if Batman let The Joker die off that building top in "The Dark Knight" - even with how perfect of a nemesis The Joker was to Batman. However, Batman saved The Joker because he still had another card up his sleeve (no pun intended). Both villains were mad dog's that had to be taken down or put down. Ra's had already sealed his fate with the decision to destroy the city. The Joker was lucky he survived his battles with Batman. Batman will keep justice no matter what balance he has to maintain. My opinion.   
|
|