Would you consider this to be unethical (nerd question)? (humans, eastern, life)

[Debnor]

Okay, so I get this is a really nerdy type of ethics question, but it is something I find to be quite interesting.

In the comics, Batman (who for those that don't know is ALWAYS thinking up solutions to problems, even ones that don't exist) came up with the best ways to kill various members of the Justice League should they go rogue. It is found out and he gets kicked out of the JL.

Obviously, he did so in a worst-case scenario since if any of the JL went rogue, say by mind control or whatever it would obviously be a very bad day. But (and I get it may seem silly to think under the circumstances), do you think Batman was ethically in the right? Obviously he'd never use them against them under normal circumstances, but he felt that having a detailed plan to take out any of the super heroes if they turned for whatever reason was prudent.

[Miss Hepburn]

I believe he was interested in saving lots of people ... so I think
his planning was in the end for good.
So yes, it was ethical.

[scribbles76]

What happened to 'The Bat does not kill?'

Forgive me. The last Bat-book I read with any measure of regularity was Shadow Of The Bat. I'm more than a little behind.

[ylisa7]

Was killing them the only solution? If he thought to kill first than that was bad. But if he threw out all other options as ones that wouldn't work and killing was the logical solution to deal with than yes.

[ukrkoz]

Wasn't there an animation about this? When someone either stole it from him or controlled him into belief that JL went rogue? I don't think he killed them, more like handicapped them.

But anyway. Life is duality. There is no right without wrong as how would you know it's right if wrong does not give it measure? So what is wrong then? Wrong for JL good for people? Wrong for Batman (who is a neurotic psycho anyway) good for people?
One could write dissertations upon dissertations on this. Never getting to the bottom. As any "resolution" only uncovers another duality.

I'll stick with eastern thinking on this. ANY INTENTION is wrong. Any desire. Any thought, for that matter. As no one truly knows what is right or wrong as it is all subjective. Only absolute peace of mind and lack of desires is right.

[Razza94]

I think it was perfectly ethical. We should always seek to be good, but simultaneously I believe that we should always be prepared to do the worst if the situation calls for it. Batman's reasoning for his philosophy seemed pretty sound.

I wouldn't normally take advice from somebody who goes by the name "Mad Dog", but I think the premise of this quote is correct, even if General Mattis did put it rather blunty:

'Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.'

[ukrkoz]

Existentially, as related to humans, any thinking that benefits a particular human is considered "pretty sound" by that human. Any thinking that does NOT benefit a particular human or somehow distorts his comfort, is "wrong".
7 billion people, 7 billion opinions.

[FredNotBob]

I think that Batman, above all, is a pragmatist. Remember, he's a mortal being (albeit a very well-trained mortal being), and he knows all-too-well that if a super-powered member of the League goes rogue or is corrupted, millions of other powerless mortal beings are going to die.

He also knows that none of his League compatriots would want that kind of blood on their hands, however unwilling they were at the time, and that if he didn't do something to stop them, he would be betraying the core of Batman's ethos -- namely, his commitment to protecting the innocent and the vulnerable.

I think he made the ethical choice.

[oldwoman]

Ethics are personal and subjective. There is no such thing as a list of objective ethical rules.

So ..... it was ethical for him and not for the others.