(Again) Batman v. Superman: Logic & Justice

-

             A grammarian’s work is never done—nor a logician’s; and when one is a writing teacher, one of necessity plays both roles.  Sloppy writing is often but the outward sign of an inward illogic, and as all fans of the planet Vulcan know, a common foe of logic is strong emotion.  Hence it logically follows that it is precisely when people write about the things that matter the most to them that they are most likely to fall into the various logical traps we term fallacies.  When this happens it is the task of calmer, more logical minds to step in and restore order where passion—quite understandable passion, perhaps—has disordered things.

            What topic could stir passions more thoroughly than the old contrast, so often flaring up into conflict, between the men who are, in a sense, the first two superheroes: Superman (1938) and Batman (1939)?  Which one is better?  Which one is cooler?  Which one would win in a fight?  It would be too simple—but nonetheless accurate—to simply point out that these two embody two very different types of hero, and to compare them would indeed be like comparing apples and oranges—all you would really discover is whether you prefer your fruit citrusy, or your knights dark.

            Still, people try.  Some time ago, a good friend and brother of mine led me to a website where someone had argued for the superiority of Superman over Batman for several reasons, some more obvious than others.  Sadly, I can no longer find the site, but I reproduce here the arguments there adduced.  I do this precisely because they illustrate the point that passion often drives out reason, for nearly every one of these arguments manifests some sort of logical flaw in its reasoning.  It is my hope that in looking at precisely how these arguments go wrong, we can more clearly see how to avoid such flawed reasoning in the future, in our own thinking, and in the thoughts of others.

We deal with the arguments in the opposite order of their original presentation:

1.      Superman can save people in the daytime

            This is true, but irrelevant, since it’s implied conclusion---that Batman can save people only at night—is simply false.  Batman may work from the shadows and seek no glory, even accepting demonization in the press if necessary, but since the “deeds of darkness” he fights tend to be done, well, in darkness—especially in Gotham—his modus operandi is fitting.  However, if necessary, he is fully capable of fighting crime in broad daylight.  The Batman is not a purely nocturnal creature.   

Advantage: Neither

2.      Superman=Superhero; Batman =Billionaire with a hobby

            This is the fallacy of argument by redefinition.  The term “superhero” is not short for “super-powered hero,” and Batman is not thereby disqualified from the title.  Furthermore, since Batman achieves his powers—such as they be—through intense training, while Superman just happens to have good genes, which one of these is the hobbyist and which one is a man with a mission?

Advantage: Billionaire

3.      Superman would win in a fight

            A.     This is a point worthy of the original Ubermensch: I am better than you because I am stronger than you.  The worship of power is among the oldest and most pathetic of human social instincts.  “Better” is not simply a synonym for “stronger.”

            B.     For those accepting this “power= certain victory” equation, read Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and see what really happened when these two squared off.

Advantage: Batman, for besting a Kryptonian

4.      Superman doesn’t need a sidekick…

Except for Supergirl, Krypto the super-dog, Streaky the super-cat, Comet the super-horse, and Beppo the super-monkey.  If we are going to start slinging mud by comparing these heroes at their silliest, then Superman might still lose.  Granted, Robin has been more a hindrance than a help to Batman’s legacy, but Batman at his best needs no sidekick and generally has none.

Advantage: Batman, who at least only had one sidekick at a time…and he was human.

5.      Batman hits girls

A.     How often he actually hits them is questionable.

B.      Fighting—and yes, even hitting—a woman who is trying to kill you is not a black mark on your record.

C.     The only reason Superman never hit a woman is because in Metropolis, none of the women rise to the dignity of being villains—much less supervillains. Practically all the women in Superman’s life are little more than damsels in distress. 

Advantage: Batman for his liberated view of women.

6.      Superman is a hero for all the right reasons

            OK, so here is a rather good point.  Still, just because Superman is driven by Noblesse oblige, while Batman is angsty and driven by personal demons, doesn’t necessarily make them anything other than two very different types of heroes: one, the sort of God-like hero we would like to be; the other, a reflection of our own very human struggle to do some mortal good with ourselves in this dark and broken world.

Still, we will be idealists here and say, Advantage: Superman

7.      Superman doesn’t need weapons to win a fight.

            Again, the best Batman stories do not rely on all his high-tech gadgets, but his mind, and his fighting prowess.  To suggest that Batman is powerless without a Batmobile and a utility belt is to oversimplify the character.

Advantage: Neither.

            Now, no one has ever said that mere mortal Bruce Wayne was in the same league as the demigod-like Kal-El of Krypton (unless you count the Justice League); my point is that this simple fact does not make Superman therefore "better." In fact, you can make a good case for Superman's superiority, if for no other reason than that to be the first, to be the Original Superhero, is to possess a superiority-by-priority that cannot be rivaled.  My point here is that these particular arguments, even all of them together, constitute no more than a house of cards based on implicit falsehood (#1 & #7), reverse-classism (#2), the fallacious equation "stronger = better" (#3), and selective attention to the relevant data (#4; no sidekicks, indeed!) and values (#5).  And since evidence is to be weighed, not counted, we could multiply arguments a thousandfold, and if they were all as fallacious as most of these, it would make no difference.  Give me one good, solid, knock-down argument any day over a mountain of fallacies.  As Albert Einstein said when someone wrote a book called 100 Authors Against Einstein, “If I had been wrong, one would have been enough.”[1]

 

 

 


[1] Not necessarily an exact quote, but a close paraphrase from memory.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Casanova Can Teach Us

-
[Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to publish a note on this theme on the 14 th , but here it is, better late than never].                  Giacomo Chevalier de Seingalt Casanova, the man known to the world simply as "Casanova," was the proverbial lover, and a prolific writer who recorded his amorous adventures for later generations to read.   Although he was not a man most honorable men would think of as a role model, there is one lesson we can learn from his life, and how he lived it.   That lesson is simply this truth: every woman is lovely, and needs to be loved.             This was the secret, we are told, of Casanova's amorous success.   He treated each woman as if she were indeed, the loveliest woman in the world; for, for him, for the moment, she was.   His error was not in viewing each woman as lovely, but in the fact that he understood love only in purely carnal terms.   if we avoid this mistake, perhaps we can learn something from the visi
Read more

An Essay Towards a Constructive Theology Part I: Science & Religion; Matter & More

-
              I am currently working on a book of a theological sort.   I am hoping to show here at least some portions of it as they develop.   So below is a beginning in the form of a brief essay:             This book is intended as a rather unusual essay—or series of essays—in theological reflection.   It is not entirely philosophical theology; nor is it purely traditional.   In fact, it approaches various questions from various unconventional, yet, I am convinced, fruitful, angles.             Let us start with some basic orienting principles for this work.   I am a firm believer that everything is—ultimately, at least—interesting, and worth knowing.   I also believe that all things are interconnected (and that making those connections is one of the ways we show how interesting things are).   As a result of this prejudice, I tend to mix together in my writing things others might keep apart: science, theology, and story; high literature and pop culture; deep reflection and humo
Read more

Abortion: Chestertonian Reflections on a Debate

-
Image
In the last few decades, few aspects of the practice of medicine have been more debated than the topic of abortion. Often, the very terms used by one side of the debate differ from the terms used by the other side, to the point that clear communication is almost impossible. What is needed now is someone to clarify the terms of the debate—someone like Gilbert Keith Chesterton, whose brilliant, sometimes paradoxical observations were often based on careful attention to the very words people use in everyday speech. Presented here are a number of reflections, in the spirit of Chesterton, on some of the terms central to the abortion debate: 1. Abortion The very word “abortion” is a point not sufficiently heeded in the debate that centers on it. People speak of aborting a fetus, but a thing cannot be aborted, only a process. People abort missions, they abort computer operations, but they do not abort computers or cars. When one aborts a pregnancy, it is like aborting any operati
Read more