36
i demand logical moral consistency from my fictional terrorists
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
36 points (97.4% liked)
Shitty Movie Details
1732 readers
161 users here now
Share your favorite movie (and other motion picture media) details, potentially with a shitty twist.
To be clear, this is a place for satirical and meta^2^ references. Not really the actual movie details, unless they're truly stupid or have strong meme potential/background. "Oh hai Mark" kind of stuff. Tho sometimes even these can span a good debate.
For maximum funni, include full name of the movie, its release date and all the detail right in the title of the post.
Try to avoid actual shit and other nasty stuff. Mark nsfw when appropriate.
For shitty videogame details, there's !shittygamedetails@lemmy.world
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Have fun.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Disagree. Not saving someone isn't killing them.
That doesn't make it morally much better.
But it's the letter vs the spirit of the law. It matters.
Would you like to start an insurance company with me?
He also decided not to pursue a medical degree and therefore didn't save lots of people he otherwise could have by being their doctor. Did he murder them, too?
Batman didn't cause those people to get sick or at risk of dying, thus it's not murder.
But he did put (as I understand, I don't remember the movie plot) Ra's al in life-threatening situation, and chose not to pull him out of there, then it becomes murder.
He technically changed the train from carrying a weapon to where it would drug everyone in the city (except a handful of people who'd had antidote and a handful of people in gas masks, one of which was Ra’s al) to carrying the weapon off the train tracks and into a train crash, but:
- he's got a strong defence that it's justifiable homicide rather than murder because in doing so, he stopped a bunch of people from dying.
- Ra’s al intentionally created the situation where the train had to be forced to crash by putting a weapon on it and driving it to where the weapon would do the most damage, so put himself in a life-threatening situation.
- Ra’s al intentionally created the situation where he'd die unless Batman saved him by staying on the train after it started the process of crashing so he could gloat about a perceived contradiction in Batman's moral code that forced him to save his enemies even after they'd just committed a mass murder. As Batman should not have reasonably expected Ra’s al to remain on a crashing train to prove a dumb point, there's a reasonable claim that it's only manslaughter even if we pretend that the initial train situation wasn't of Ra’s al's making.
Ra's al
Is... Is that canonically his given name...? Mr Ghul, Ra's al? Doesn't it mean "Head of the"? As in "Head of the Demon"?
Pretty sure it's Ra's al-Ghul. So "Ra's" is the given name
Edit: nope, no hyphen. He is an enigma.
I couldn't be bothered to look anything up for that comment as I'd rewatched the film pretty recently, so just got the name and it's spelling from the post title and the comment above mine. I didn't dare include the rest as I was pretty sure it wasn't spelled Ghoul and expected someone to decide to correct me.
Aight, I'm in it.
So, ignoring any non Batman issues as to whether or not it would be the same or equivalent to killing to us, let's look at Batman.
Specifically to his no killing rule.
In general he doesn't refuse to kill because a criminal/villain dying isn't a good thing, or that he doesn't think death is a useful ending for a truly dangerous individual.
It's a personal line he won't cross. There's been endless debate about why that's his line when he certainly isn't stopped by causing immense pain, crippling injuries, disfigurement, or other violent acts. And that's always fun to debate!
But it is his line. Him directly ending someone else's life is where he says nope. And there is a difference between killing someone and letting them die. There's an even bigger difference if you let them die as the result of their own actions vs if you make the situation occur.
Ra's al Ghul, in that specific story, did cause himself to be in that situation. Batman certainly contributed to it leading to that exact moment, that exact outcome, but he wasn't causative (for sure not in his mind, even if we disagree with that assessment). So being able to walk away would be internally consistent within that film universe. Wouldn't be with other versions of the Batman, but that series was less civilized in many ways than even some of the comic iterations where he went dark.
There are other versions of Batman that would have tried to save Ra's' life.
It can be really difficult to separate out all the versions of Batman. The movies don't all have continuity, but they seem to. But they definitely aren't the same Batman as the animated movies, or the animated series, or the comics (hell, you have to break comics down into eras, and even then there's a lack of consistency), and definitely not the 60s tv show.
But there aren't many characters that have as fractured a history in multiple media. Superman? You can mostly stitch the movies together into two, maybe three chunks and they don't conflict inside those chunks. Spider-Man has had a lot of iterations, but is pretty damn consistent across them in terms of holding to his core "spirit". Even James Bond only comes close to the disjointed portrayal Batman has had.
I'd even argue that Dr Who is less disjointed than Batman, and he essentially becomes a new person.
Anyway, I found that scene to fit that Batman very well
Batman only has a duty to render aid if batman put him in that situation. It's arguable, to say the least, whether batman directly put him in the dangerous situation, or whether ra's put himself there, but to be clear, this is not murder. I am definitely not a lawyer.
I'm sure if I searched "batman legaleagle" he's already done a video on it...
I'm not touching you. I'm just waving my hand 1 inch from your face.
But if Batman had time and opportunity to escape it, then so did Ra's.
Maybe he was the same drama queen like his daughter?
ugh that movie.
I liked the setup. I liked batman losing and the prison scene. I like the exit that batman pulls at the end of the movie.
But they do a big fist fight with cops vs. gangsters and pretend the gangsters wouldn't just shoot them and AAAALL the setup the other two movies and arcs did go out of the window. It's just so silly.
Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who, through criminal negligence, allows another person to die.
hes rich, he can get away with it, besides he also has good pr.
I mean... He's Batman, not a robot in Asimov's fiction. He doesn't have to obey the first law.
Batman loves killing. One time he kicked a guy in the neck and broke it. And this other time he punched a guy into a vat of acid.
Tim Burton Batman killed easily 10+ people per movie.
he just needs an excuse.