Should Batman Have Made Robin?

772 Words4 Pages
Should Batman have made Robin? How is it acceptable for a man to recruit a young child, and release upon the most evil, dangerous criminals a city has to offer? The answer lies in utilitarian ethics, which says, an action is morally good so long as its consequences promote benefit for the greatest number of people (DiGiovanna 20). With Robin’s help Batman can save a higher number of people than he can alone; so based purely on numbers Robin’s exposure to danger is a small price to pay for the safety of innocent citizens of Gotham. Robin should be thought of as a costumed hero that saves the lives of hundreds, not as a liability. Without Robin Batman would be forced to take on the city’s villains alone. The task itself is daunting but alone could prove impossible. Robin’s assistance to Batman’s safety should also be taken in to consideration. He does help Batman save innocent people, but when the Dark Knight finds himself in a tight situation and needs an extra pair of hands, who’s hands are better to use than his sidekick’s? According to the Kantian argument, it is universally unethical to expose children to danger. As a mother or father it becomes second nature to keep one’s children out of harm’s way, and as a society this rule is accepted almost everywhere. It is in universality where utilitarianism fails. The most important duties must be universal and without exception to anyone according to Immanuel Kant (DiGiovanna 19). Utilitarianism does not take this point into consideration. If every adult did as Batman did, and instead of shelter children from harm, cast him or her into lethal and dangerous situations what would become of them? Sure they would learn bravery, but what about their right to a family? Would they ever know unconditional love? According to Kantian thought a child should be surrounded by love and affection, not thrown into danger. Because

More about Should Batman Have Made Robin?

Open Document