Poll: Was anyone else offended by the justice/revenge-based messages of Batman Begins?

[HannesPascal]

That's basically DC for you. Wouldn't surprise me if their motto was "Thou shall not kill or want to kill someone because it's wrong, also we are lazy and don't want to make up new villains all the time" or something like that.

 

[DioWallachia]

You got to elaborate more on the Full Metal Alchemist comapration.

Also, this:

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I don't want to state that revenge is or isn't justified, my emotions often conflict with my objective logic. It's the lack of sympathy that I think is the problem.

Lack of sympathy? I don't get how this has anything to do with Batman Begins.

It's the way I alone interpret a lack of sympathy. See my examples. Remember, this isn't just about Batman Begins, it's about attitudes towards the issue in general.

 

[snekadid]

The problem is that the movie and alot of people confuse the meaning of justice with the meaning of LAW, but they are very different things. Justice involves balance and "morality", Laws are based off power and have little to do with perceived rights and wrongs. Revenge fits in there too and while it shares some attributes with justice, revenge is almost always destructive and should never be a way of life.

It's been a while since I've watched that movie, but wasn't it heavily pro-vengeance being, you know, a Batman movie? Anti-murder, yes, but not vengeance.

I was referring to when Bruce wanted to kill Chill.

Then, no, I wasn't against that. In fact, I'm against the death penalty. It doesn't stop being murder just because the person you're killing did something wrong, or because a judge and jury agreed on killing him. If anything, the whole judge and jury bit makes it worse, because it's a murder done in the coldest of cold blood. I'll accept revenge killings when we start killing judges and juries that sentence people to death, and the executioners that carry out the sentences.

Most states have a "Dog Bite" law, where it boils down to if a dog kills a human or bites a human while having a history of aggressive behavior, the dog must be put down. Do you understand why? It's not to punish the dog, after all the dog couldn't possibly know better, dogs can only react and act upon instinct so it isn't the dogs fault. The dog is put down because it has proven its capacity to harm human lives and so to prevent possible future deaths it must die.

Yes, you're talking about a human and there is a big difference, the human has the ability to reason. While the dog is a victim of generations of adaptation in the form of instincts, the human knew what he was doing, was able to think about it, reason it out and he decided murdering another human being was the best option for what ever he was trying to accomplish. Not only that but people don't generally end up on deathrow for a single murder so this person came to the conclusion that killing someone was a good idea multiple times, showing not only that they can kill people, but that its something that didn't bother them enough to keep them from repeating it.

I'm sure thats someone you want to have hanging around your neighborhood right? Locking them up in jail isn't a solution and it shows a lack of humanity in yourself if you can't see an issue with locking up a murderer along side other criminals, many of which according to the most recent population accounts of our jails, have never even assaulted anyone much less murdered another human being with a large percentage being related to drug crimes. Even if you give someone life imprisonment, that doesn't prevent them from killing other inmates, guards or other prison staff, and then what will you do to them? give them another life sentence?

"Revenge killing" is never an answer and we are far past the Hammurabi days of an eye for an eye, but denying that some people are just too dangerous to let live because you don't like the idea of being responsible for the death of a human is selfish. While you pretend to have a clean conscience because you said no to lethal injection, you become just as guilty as they are when they kill someone because of your inaction.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

The problem is that the movie and alot of people confuse the meaning of justice with the meaning of LAW, but they are very different things. Justice involves balance and "morality"

It's just a shame that the desire for impartiality is sometimes what creates injustice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129105/Rape-girl-driven-suicide-ordeal-court.html

Despite efforts to reduce the issue, victim-blaming is still a considerable problem.

 

[snekadid]

The problem is that the movie and alot of people confuse the meaning of justice with the meaning of LAW, but they are very different things. Justice involves balance and "morality"

It's just a shame that the desire for impartiality is sometimes what creates injustice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129105/Rape-girl-driven-suicide-ordeal-court.html

And that's just one example.

Its unfortunate that the justice system is very light on actual justice but that link just supports my statement, victims are treated as liars while the perpetrators receive more rights than most honest citizens. Law is about punishment for crimes, whether those crimes have victims or not and whether that punishment actually helps improve anything, and the amount of loopholes created to protect the perps has permitted guilty people get away with murder because evidence that proves beyond a doubt guilt is rejected. Its so counterproductive.

 

[darlarosa]

....I think that if you want murderous revenge you should not be offended by it. You may feel justified but the true embracing of revenge is the acceptance of it being wrong, negative, blood thirsty and in that way almost holy. Justice in modern western society cannot be compatible with revenge to those who live under and respect the law. Bruce Wayne was going to kill the man who killed his parents, thus possibly robbing another child of their father, a wife a husband, a parent of a son. Ultimately Bruce would be the same as the killer by an act of revenge under the moral constraints placed upon us by a larger society.

Truthfully if you look at it the Justice League, Justice Society of America, and in particular Batman are no better than murderers. Their surrendering to the laws of the land have allowed the Joker, Scarscrow, Poison Ivy, and hundreds of others to go free after killing dozens to thousands of people(not to mention the people they mutilated) in the name of American style Justice. However that is the general moral constraint of these comics, and it can also act as a show of discipline. For example in the recent Avengers v.s the X-Men Emma Frost powered by the Phoenix force popped up in this guys home while he was having a lovely dinner with his family (including children) and blew his brains out telepathically as justice for a mutant he had killed. Emma was ultimately no better than the man, perhaps worse for doing it so coldly and callously in front of people who loved him and more importantly were not even involved. Either way we must remember there is always a moral lens brought to us by the writers and ultimately a piece is subject to that.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

....I think that if you want murderous revenge you should not be offended by it. You may feel justified but the true embracing of revenge is the acceptance of it being wrong, negative, blood thirsty and in that way almost holy. Justice in modern western society cannot be compatible with revenge to those who live under and respect the law. Bruce Wayne was going to kill the man who killed his parents, thus possibly robbing another child of their father, a wife a husband, a parent of a son. Ultimately Bruce would be the same as the killer by an act of revenge under the moral constraints placed upon us by a larger society.

Truthfully if you look at it the Justice League, Justice Society of America, and in particular Batman are no better than murderers. Their surrendering to the laws of the land have allowed the Joker, Scarscrow, Poison Ivy, and hundreds of others to go free after killing dozens to thousands of people(not to mention the people they mutilated) in the name of American style Justice. However that is the general moral constraint of these comics, and it can also act as a show of discipline. For example in the recent Avengers v.s the X-Men Emma Frost powered by the Phoenix force popped up in this guys home while he was having a lovely dinner with his family (including children) and blew his brains out telepathically as justice for a mutant he had killed. Emma was ultimately no better than the man, perhaps worse for doing it so coldly and callously in front of people who loved him and more importantly were not even involved. Either way we must remember there is always a moral lens brought to us by the writers and ultimately a piece is subject to that.

Don't pry (I'm depressed to the point of suicidal at the moment,) but I don't actually believe in the "no better than the criminal" theory. I believe motivations and unintentional mental implications cause them to differ, based on several factors. I'm aware you may have a curious or afflictive response. However (as I said,) please don't pry at this very moment; perhaps another time.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

The problem is that the movie and alot of people confuse the meaning of justice with the meaning of LAW, but they are very different things. Justice involves balance and "morality", Laws are based off power and have little to do with perceived rights and wrongs. Revenge fits in there too and while it shares some attributes with justice, revenge is almost always destructive and should never be a way of life.

It's been a while since I've watched that movie, but wasn't it heavily pro-vengeance being, you know, a Batman movie? Anti-murder, yes, but not vengeance.

I was referring to when Bruce wanted to kill Chill.

Then, no, I wasn't against that. In fact, I'm against the death penalty. It doesn't stop being murder just because the person you're killing did something wrong, or because a judge and jury agreed on killing him. If anything, the whole judge and jury bit makes it worse, because it's a murder done in the coldest of cold blood. I'll accept revenge killings when we start killing judges and juries that sentence people to death, and the executioners that carry out the sentences.

Most states have a "Dog Bite" law, where it boils down to if a dog kills a human or bites a human while having a history of aggressive behavior, the dog must be put down. Do you understand why? It's not to punish the dog, after all the dog couldn't possibly know better, dogs can only react and act upon instinct so it isn't the dogs fault. The dog is put down because it has proven its capacity to harm human lives and so to prevent possible future deaths it must die.

Yes, you're talking about a human and there is a big difference, the human has the ability to reason. While the dog is a victim of generations of adaptation in the form of instincts, the human knew what he was doing, was able to think about it, reason it out and he decided murdering another human being was the best option for what ever he was trying to accomplish. Not only that but people don't generally end up on deathrow for a single murder so this person came to the conclusion that killing someone was a good idea multiple times, showing not only that they can kill people, but that its something that didn't bother them enough to keep them from repeating it.

I'm sure thats someone you want to have hanging around your neighborhood right? Locking them up in jail isn't a solution and it shows a lack of humanity in yourself if you can't see an issue with locking up a murderer along side other criminals, many of which according to the most recent population accounts of our jails, have never even assaulted anyone much less murdered another human being with a large percentage being related to drug crimes. Even if you give someone life imprisonment, that doesn't prevent them from killing other inmates, guards or other prison staff, and then what will you do to them? give them another life sentence?

"Revenge killing" is never an answer and we are far past the Hammurabi days of an eye for an eye, but denying that some people are just too dangerous to let live because you don't like the idea of being responsible for the death of a human is selfish. While you pretend to have a clean conscience because you said no to lethal injection, you become just as guilty as they are when they kill someone because of your inaction.

I frequently write about the difference between justice and law; I understand the difference. As you know, this thread was commenced out of my disquiet at the interpreted lack of sympathy towards vengeful individuals.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.388733-Rapist-With-The-Dragon-Tattoo?page=10#15601203

I fear some would claim I was playing the sympathy card, but scroll to the bottom of this page until you reach my extensive response to the user "matthew_lane". It was revealed out of anger towards the user, but observe if you wish to know what befell my sister.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm sorry, the what-now? I'm a bit busy watching and enjoying.

Okay, in all seriousness, if you are overly-annoyed by a justice and revenge schtick in ANYTHING Batman, you are in for some disappointment. The whole of Batman's vigilante existence depends on walking the fine line, which means that topic WILL come up. I, for one, am not worried.

 

[MammothBlade]

....I think that if you want murderous revenge you should not be offended by it. You may feel justified but the true embracing of revenge is the acceptance of it being wrong, negative, blood thirsty and in that way almost holy. Justice in modern western society cannot be compatible with revenge to those who live under and respect the law. Bruce Wayne was going to kill the man who killed his parents, thus possibly robbing another child of their father, a wife a husband, a parent of a son. Ultimately Bruce would be the same as the killer by an act of revenge under the moral constraints placed upon us by a larger society.

Truthfully if you look at it the Justice League, Justice Society of America, and in particular Batman are no better than murderers. Their surrendering to the laws of the land have allowed the Joker, Scarscrow, Poison Ivy, and hundreds of others to go free after killing dozens to thousands of people(not to mention the people they mutilated) in the name of American style Justice. However that is the general moral constraint of these comics, and it can also act as a show of discipline. For example in the recent Avengers v.s the X-Men Emma Frost powered by the Phoenix force popped up in this guys home while he was having a lovely dinner with his family (including children) and blew his brains out telepathically as justice for a mutant he had killed. Emma was ultimately no better than the man, perhaps worse for doing it so coldly and callously in front of people who loved him and more importantly were not even involved. Either way we must remember there is always a moral lens brought to us by the writers and ultimately a piece is subject to that.

Don't pry (I'm depressed to the point of suicidal at the moment,) but I don't actually believe in the "no better than the criminal" theory. I believe motivations and unintentional mental implications cause them to differ, based on several factors. I'm aware you may have a curious or afflictive response. However (as I said,) please don't pry at this very moment; perhaps another time.

I agree strongly, that revenge sometimes is justified and has a purpose - there has to be reasonable retribution for the harm done to the victim/their families present in law and the justice system, or it leaves an open wound on the offended parties unhealed.

As to what you said before - you're right, a wholly impartial justice system can promote injustices, for it neglects the feelings of the victim which have to be addressed eventually.

It's impossible to bring murder victims back, but that makes it all the more important to demand severe consequences on their behalf.

 

[Albafika]

Batman begins was the best film about Batman and i'm not offendeed. Everyone has own private equity [http://www.grupatrinity.pl/uslugi/inwestycje/private-equity] and like something else. I like First part of Batman's story the most.

 

[darlarosa]

....I think that if you want murderous revenge you should not be offended by it. You may feel justified but the true embracing of revenge is the acceptance of it being wrong, negative, blood thirsty and in that way almost holy. Justice in modern western society cannot be compatible with revenge to those who live under and respect the law. Bruce Wayne was going to kill the man who killed his parents, thus possibly robbing another child of their father, a wife a husband, a parent of a son. Ultimately Bruce would be the same as the killer by an act of revenge under the moral constraints placed upon us by a larger society.

Truthfully if you look at it the Justice League, Justice Society of America, and in particular Batman are no better than murderers. Their surrendering to the laws of the land have allowed the Joker, Scarscrow, Poison Ivy, and hundreds of others to go free after killing dozens to thousands of people(not to mention the people they mutilated) in the name of American style Justice. However that is the general moral constraint of these comics, and it can also act as a show of discipline. For example in the recent Avengers v.s the X-Men Emma Frost powered by the Phoenix force popped up in this guys home while he was having a lovely dinner with his family (including children) and blew his brains out telepathically as justice for a mutant he had killed. Emma was ultimately no better than the man, perhaps worse for doing it so coldly and callously in front of people who loved him and more importantly were not even involved. Either way we must remember there is always a moral lens brought to us by the writers and ultimately a piece is subject to that.

Don't pry (I'm depressed to the point of suicidal at the moment,) but I don't actually believe in the "no better than the criminal" theory. I believe motivations and unintentional mental implications cause them to differ, based on several factors. I'm aware you may have a curious or afflictive response. However (as I said,) please don't pry at this very moment; perhaps another time.

I agree strongly, that revenge sometimes is justified and has a purpose - there has to be reasonable retribution for the harm done to the victim/their families present in law and the justice system, or it leaves an open wound on the offended parties unhealed.

As to what you said before - you're right, a wholly impartial justice system can promote injustices, for it neglects the feelings of the victim which have to be addressed eventually.

It's impossible to bring murder victims back, but that makes it all the more important to demand severe consequences on their behalf.

There is really no right or wrong to this discussion. Everyone views it differently
Revenge can always be justified. Everything can be justified to someone at some point.
But there is a ring of truth to the eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind thing. The question is does punishment actually serve a purpose? Depending on the revenge or punishment, like I said you end up depriving someone else of something. There is no fair, its just a matter of the situation, the people involved, and the luck of whose feelings are more important.
For example:
Tom gets in a fight with Harry and kills him, perhaps by accident but it is impossible to determine. Harry was a thoroughly atrocious man, a low life thug in his youth who grew up into a cruel mean hearted man etc. Tom is a likable guy, doesn't regret killing Harry however. TOM gets the death penalty despite being a stand up individual who probably won't be involved in future incidents. Should Tom get the death penalty as retribution? Should charges be lowered? Is Harry's "evil" life worth less than Tom's?

There is no simple answer. Both sides, in the view of modern Western society could be equally justified. It just depends on who you ask and the situation.
If someone complains that the movies were not sympathetic to revenge, well thats because the creators of that film are not necessarily sympathetic to revenge. No point in complaining about their opinion, or the thesis of the movie. The character of Batman himself stands AGAINST revenge regardless. You watch pretty much every modern version of him and there's a point where he or his ward is driven to wanting revenge and does not take it because then there is no real difference between their actions.

Just because something is "justified" does not mean the action is any different, and does not hurt someone else.