Rhetorical Analysis: Should Batman Kill the Joker?

            Pop culture is a useful tool for analyzing ethical approaches to emotional issues objectively. Mark D. White and Robert Arp’s essay, “Should Batman Kill the Joker?” (published in The Boston Globe in 2008), proves this by using Batman to analyze America’s “issues with terror and torture” (405). The authors apply the principles of the three major schools of ethics to the question of whether or not Batman should kill the Joker—which they claim is analogous to whether America should torture terrorists to obtain information that could save innocent lives—in order to demonstrate the value of their method of analysis. The essay effectively utilizes several rhetorical strategies to support the authors’ thesis: viz., using simple diction, referring to Americans as “we,” critically analyzing Batman’s quandary, and using inductive reasoning to suggest a general rule (i.e., pop culture can be used to analyze ethical approaches to emotional issues).

            In order to appeal to most Americans, the authors use one of the most famous characters ever created to demonstrate how analyzing pop culture can lead to worldly conclusions. Since Batman is known by people of all ages, the essay’s examples are relevant for people young and old. By using Batman the authors are able to instantly connect with the majority of readers and leave them with a memorable example. Furthermore, using a massively appealing character makes the essay more interesting. Also, rather than having to explain a hypothetical, using a scenario that most readers have prior knowledge of saves readers time and effort. Using Batman as its primary example allows “Should Batman Kill the Joker?” to captivate nearly any American reader.

            Like the use of Batman as their primary example, the authors’ diction is intended for the average American. White and Arp refrain from using recondite vocabulary in order to appeal to as many people as possible; they even use slang and contractions. For instance, the authors ask, “Does Batman want to be the kind of person that takes his enemies’ lives? If he killed the Joker, would he be able to stop there, or would every two-bit thug get the same treatment?” (405). “Two-bit” makes the authors’ questions seem quite informal. One can imagine two friends talking amongst themselves in much the same fashion. Also, the essay states that if Batman killed the Joker he would be replaced by one of the “masked loonies ready to take the Joker’s place” (404). “Loony” and “two-bit” help the essay seem more nonchalant than it truly is. Like a dog that swallows a pill inside of a slice of cheese, the unsuspecting reader swallows an ethics lesson masked by the essay’s entertainingness.

            Also, the essay’s use of “we” in reference to Americans betrays its intended audience. The authors ask, “[W]hy aren’t we tougher on actual terrorists than we are on the make-believe Joker?” (405). Since the essay was published in The Boston Globe, an American newspaper, it is reasonable to assume that the authors are referring to Americans when they use “we.” Later in the piece they use “we” in reference to Americans again: “Many Americans who oppose torture explain their position by saying, ‘It’s not who we are’ or ‘We don’t want to turn into them.’” (406). After considering both quotes together, it becomes apparent that the authors are using “we” to refer to Americans, and thus expect Americans to read their essay. Again, the essay uses informal language (make-believe) to make the essay seem more insouciant. To summarize, the authors use elementary diction and slang and refer to Americans as “we” in order to appeal to an average American audience.

             In almost every paragraph White and Arp appeal to logic or critically analyze whether Batman should kill the Joker—and thereby analyze whether or not America should torture terrorists. The essay begins by presenting Batman’s dilemma and logically transitions into implications which can be derived from it: “Batman should kill the Joker. […] But if we say that Batman should kill the Joker, doesn’t that imply that we should torture terror suspects if there’s a chance of getting information that could save innocent lives?” (404). The authors begin with an unemotional solution to a fictional problem and apply it to a highly emotional, earthly issue. Though the jump from Batman and the Joker to America and terrorism is sudden, the authors effectively demonstrate how the former can be used to analyze the latter—thereby proving their thesis.

 Next the authors apply the Utilitarianism, Deontology, and virtue ethics to Batman: “Utilitarianism […] would probably endorse killing the Joker, based on comparing the many lives saved against the one life lost. […] [Deontology’s] position would be more ambiguous than [Utilitarianism’s]: While it may be preferable for the Joker to be dead, it may not be morally right for any person (such as Batman) to kill him. […] Finally, virtue ethics […] would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person that takes his enemies’ lives? If he killed the Joker, would he be able to stop there, or would every two-bit thug get the same treatment?” (405). All three schools of ethics suggest a different solution to Batman’s problem. The authors use those solutions to analyze the debate over torture: “The same arguments apply to the debate over torture: While there are good reasons to do it, based on the positive consequences that may come from it, there are also good reasons not to, especially those based on our national character.” (406). This type of analysis—starting with an unemotional issue in pop culture that parallels a real, emotional one, critically analyzing the fictional issue, and then retranslating the analysis—effectively demonstrates how pop culture can be used to analyze real-world problems.

            In conclusion, “Should Batman Kill the Joker?” persuasively utilizes a number of rhetorical strategies to convey its point that pop culture can be used to explore “uncomfortable and emotional” topics (406). The essay’s elementary verbiage and primary example allow it to appeal to a large audience, while its sound critical analysis vindicates its thesis. White and Arp prove that fictional problems have real value.