Kantianism And Similarities Between Batman And The Joker

For as long as society existed, there have been attempts of defining morality. Morality is the boundary between a hero and a villain. In TV shows and cartoons, we learned that heroes, regardless how strong the temptation, would choose to do the right thing rather than what’s easy, whereas villains would do anything and everything within their power to get what they want. An example of this contrast is Batman and the Joker. Batman never breaks his one rule to kill, despite of the cruel things the Joker did to tempt him. The Joker on the other hand would do anything to entertain himself, even killing innocent lives. Only when there is a set of rules that draws a boundary between right and wrong can there be order and peace within the society.
Kant emphasized the value of doing what is right rather than doing what is easy in his philosophy. He believes that morality should be derived from reason and logic because reason is not a subjective cause and hence will not be influenced by subjective inclinations. Therefore, this is the only aspect which humans cannot manipulate as a means to obtain what they want. And in Kant’s perspective, possession of a good will is not considered ethical, because contained with in good will are empirical aspects such as emotions and passions, and the will itself is of worldly inclinations, not reason. All actions that are made from logic and reason are then grouped into four categories: actions that are unethical; actions that are in agreement with reason and duty, in the absence of immediate desires; actions that are in accord with duty, however it was done because of ulterior motives; and actions that accords to duty despite the immediate inclination contrary to the action. Kant believes the fourth type of action is the true type of morality. In Kantianism, in order to act morally, the individual must be free of inclination. Kant explained that inclinations themselves are much more desirable than the worldly objects because objects only have a surface value. But inclinations are the root of desire, and since it does not have an absolute value, it makes them much more
Kant knowing quite well of the difficulties, where he acknowledged that all moral philosophies are based on pure parts, and that even though the idea of pure practical reason may be good, as human beings affected by many worldly attachments, the incorporation of that idea into daily practice is not so easily accepted. And because of this reason, Kantianism has very rigid and cumbersome rules that sometimes seem out of contact with reality of society. It is because Kant realizes that doctrine of morals were first founded on a metaphysics of morals, but was later changed in order to increase its popularity in society. And this change ruined morals with merit into principles that are only retaining half the reason and moral. This seems to be describing Utilitarianism. The founding idea of its moral, common nobility was an idea of value. However, the philosophers tried to adapt the moral standard towards the actions of society rather than making society changing its actions to adapt to the moral law. This mixture of moral philosophy and worldly inclinations not only does not cut a clear boundary of good and bad, it also gives room for an individual to act according to his/her motives, which may or may not be accord to the moral law. Since Kant realized this dangerous downward spiral of morality, he set boundaries that seemingly