Last month we featured Man of Steel for our moral dilemma dialogue. We figured this month, since they’ll soon be staring side-by-side, we would give Batman some time in the spotlight as we examine a particular dilemma presented in The Dark Knight.
[WARNING, SPOILERS AHEAD!!]
Directed by Christopher Nolan in 2008, The Dark Knight has a number of moral scenarios in it that would be interesting to analyze. Do you drop the Joker from the skyscraper? Do you push the button to blow up the other boat and save yourself? What we’d like to examine for this moral dilemma dialogue comes at the end of the film, once Harvey Dent has taken on the persona of Two-Face. Dent was to be the “savior” of the city and finally stand up to organized crime. Bruce Wayne was even counting on him to make Batman irrelevant. Yet, as we all witness, Dent takes a nose-dive into crazy-town and off’s a handful of bad, or at least crooked, individuals.
The final scene finds Dent and Batman having fallen from about 4 stories. Dent dies from the fall. He had already killed five people and whatever hope of prosecuting countless other criminals had just died with him and his 
reputation. Batman decides however to keep this truth a secret. Batman says, “They can never know. I killed those people.” Detective Gordon naturally objects to this plan, exclaiming that that’s not who Batman is! Batman responds, “That’s what I can be… I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be. Sometimes truth isn’t good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.” Batman and Gordon decide to protect the truth with a lie. A lie they both believe is better for everyone than the consequences of the truth. But, was that the right and morally correct thing to do? Was this lie justified, or do Gordon and Batman now have the same blood on their hands that Dent does? That is the dilemma we’ll be discussing.
For this dilemma, Gene and Logan will each be taking opposite sides, but they’ll both try to make their case using God’s Word. Logan will argue that the lie was wrong, Gene will argue that they made the right decision. Neither of them may actually hold these positions in reality, but they’ll do their best to represent each side fairly. When it’s all said and done, it’s up to you to decide who uses scripture accurately and makes the best case for their position.
************************************************************************
Gene
I think this issue is best tackled in two phases. First, we need to determine what God’s word says about lying. Is it absolutely against it, are there special circumstances, etc. Second, apply that knowledge to the situation we find ourselves in with The Dark Knight.
First things first; the Bible and lying. It should come as no surprise to anyone with a cursory knowledge of scripture that lying is frowned upon in the Bible. In fact, there’s a little more than frowning going on here. Paul includes lying with other sins such as murdering, kidnapping and homosexuality (1 Tim. 1:9,10). Revelation 21:8 says that liars, among others, will “be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Finally, in giving the law to Moses, God said “You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.” (Lev. 19:11). So the Bible is absolutely against lying, in all cases, right? Not so fast!
Consider the story of Rahab the Harlot, found in Joshua, ch. 2. When the Jews were coming out of Egypt into the land they were promised, Joshua decided to send two spies to see about the land. They came to Jericho, to the house of Rahab. The King of Jericho heard that men came in to spy out the land and he sent troops to Rahab’s house. She lied, saying the men had come to her home but had left. In reality, she was hiding them in the stalks of her roof. Rahab lied to her very king to protect these men. So obviously, according to the verses already cited, she’s going to hell right? Hold on a minute… James says she was justified by her works of lying (James 2:25) and the Hebrew writer says she acted in faith and gained approval by it (Hebrews 11:31,39). What’s up with that? She lied! Clearly there are some other circumstances to consider when it comes to lying. I believe that based on the example of Rahab, we find that lying is not an absolute sin, it is an objective one. In other words, if by my lying a righteous deed is accomplished, my lie not counted against me. Please note, this is not the same as moral relativism. That would be saying that it’s okay for me to lie, but not you, regardless of the situation. Instead, moral objectivism considers the circumstances, not the person, and this is precisely what the story of Rahab teaches us.
Now part two; were Gordon and Batman justified by their lie? To answer that let’s consider the consequences of the truth. As Gordon had already stated, all the criminals awaiting trial whom Dent brought in would go free on account of Dent’s tarnished reputation. Is that right? No, they should still be tried based on the evidence of their guilt, but our system allows for the weak reputation of a witness or prosecutor to ruin an otherwise solid 
case. That’s just the reality of it. The criminals would have gone free and justice would be non-existent. The lie they told however, rightly corrects an inherent flaw in the system to serve justice where it needs to be served. The burden of keeping the lie a secret is a righteous one when weighed against the consequences of being truthful. Batman and Gordon made the right decision.
************************************************************************
Logan
People make rationalizations for lies all the time. Some of them are obviously wrong like “It kept me out of trouble” or “I wanted your attention.” Others, however, are less obvious. But because they are less obvious in their deceptive motivations, does that make them any more permissible?
Gordon and Batman’s lie at the end of The Dark Knight seems very reasonable to the outsider. After all, if they hadn’t lied, The Dent Act may not have happened, the criminals Dent locked up would probably be released, and they’d be right back to square one. Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it? It also sounds a bit like playing God.
Proverbs 26:27-28: “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling. A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.” You might say “But they didn’t hate their victims! They were acting for the good of the people!” Were they? They might have believed that they were, but that doesn’t mean that what they did was for the good of the people of Gotham. It’s much like “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” It doesn’t mean that if you don’t discipline your son that you loathe him the way you loathe an enemy, but that you aren’t acting in his best interests. In that sense, you do not love him. In the same way, if you hide the truth and deceive with lies, you aren’t acting in the best interest of your brother.
As this passage gives the analogy of the pit, so do Batman and Gordon fall into the pit in the next film. I won’t say any more than that for those of you who haven’t seen it, but this passage is very prophetic as it pertains to this scenario.
“Now wait a minute,” you might say. “What about Rahab? She lied and God blessed her!” Does that mean that God approves of the lie? Rahab was God-fearing, but she did not have the law. She knew nothing about God other than the fact that He was powerful, so she did the best that she could in her scenario. As Acts 17:30 points out, God in times past overlooked ignorance, like He did in Rahab’s case. Now that we have seen God through His son Jesus and have been told the will of God through the Holy Spirit, God expects all men everywhere to repent. That includes repenting of the things God hates, one of which is a lying tongue according to Proverbs 6.
Incidentally, the first thing mentioned in the Proverbs 6 list is a “haughty look,” denoting pride. Pride is exactly what Batman and Gordon were portraying when they made this up. Sure, Batman took the fall, and there is some selflessness and morality to that, but that’s not all there is to it. Inherent in their actions is the attitude “I know what this people needs more than they know what they need.” Isn’t that pride? Isn’t that haughtiness? Isn’t that arrogance? Presuming that you are the exception and that in your unique circumstance it’s okay with God if you do the very thing that he hates is playing God. Even Batman is not an exception to the rule.
************************************************************************
Here is where you come in! Put yourself in Gordan or Batman’s shoes; would you lie to protect Dent’s reputation? Would you lay the blame of murder at the feet of an innocent, masked man? Do you hold truth above all else? Did Gene and Logan fairly represent each side? Did one or both misuse scripture in attempt to justify their position? Tell us what you think, let’s get a dialogue going! To jog your memory, here is the final scene from The Dark Knight.
Great discussion gentlemen! I’ll just jump right in, if that’s ok.
I think Gene’s got it right about Rahab specifically because James applauds her for it. But we really have to understand the significance of what she did and why it was a good thing to do (according to James). See, Rahab didn’t just lie. She was first faced with a moral dilemma: Does she lie (i.e. perpetrate a deception) and save the Israelite spies or does she tell the truth and send the spies to their likely death? By the way, I don’t think (as Logan attempted to show) that because Rahab was a Gentile that she was ignorant of the fact that lying under typical circumstances is wrong. I think anyone in any culture can know that it’s wrong because of the knowledge that they have of God within themselves (Romans 1).
So, Rahab chose to be deceitful (lie) in order to save the spies’ lives because of her faith that the Israelites were of God. What conclusion, then, can we draw from this? There are situations where a greater moral good stands behind, so to speak, a typically immoral act. And, if one commits the typically immoral act with the greater good in mind, the typically immoral act has proper justification. This is why James can applaud Rahab for what she had done. He certainly doesn’t say, “She chose the greater moral good in spite of the lie… but it will be overlooked this one time.”
So, if the principle I just described is true, then we should be able to find other Scriptural examples of particular deeds that are given license by God that would otherwise be immoral in certain circumstances. And this is exactly what we find. Look at the act of committing murder. In typical circumstances, it is a sin (Exodus 20:13). But God gives the Israelites license to murder people who commit other egregious sins (Exodus 21:12). Look at disobeying the government. In Acts 4, the apostles are told to disobey the authorities and preach the gospel even though Paul teaches that we should obey and be in subjection to governing authorities in Romans 13. And the same principle applies to deception. If it didn’t, then we’d have a very difficult time explaining what God tells Samuel to do in 1 Samuel 16.
What’s important is having proper justification for the things that you do. That makes all the difference.
Having said that, I don’t think Batman and Gordon had proper justification to lie about Dent. In considering this idea of justification, I think the question also must be asked: Who do you have to lie to in order for the greater good to be realized? In Rahab’s case, it was a corrupt king and his men. In Batman and Gordon’s case, it was the people of Gotham city. Those are two entirely different scenarios. I’m aware of the Dent Act (which certainly makes things complicated) but what I don’t see is the impossibility of fashioning another act in its place to ensure the same goal. Nor do I see why, if the act is that good, it can’t be passed regardless of what Dent did. They could have passed the act and thrown him in jail along with the other criminals. It would have been a lot more difficult. But would it have been utterly impossible? I think that has to be seriously weighed.
As a matter of fact, had Batman and Gordon not lied to the people of Gotham, Bane would not have been given the impetus to free all the criminals in The Dark Knight Rises. Bane stands there reading Gordon’s letter on his megaphone and clutching his pearls as if the shock of the lie were enough to justify his own actions. They weren’t. But had Batman and Gordon not lied, Bane would not have been able to use that as leverage.
I think that’s, ultimately, why the end of The Dark Knight was so good. It calls into question what good reasons one has for doing anything. Bruce Wayne wanted to become a symbol of justice in a Gotham City full of corrupt cops, lawyers, and judges in Batman Begins. So he conducts himself as Batman in a righteous, moral way (compared to the city’s authority figures). And then, ironically, he erects a symbol of righteousness (Dent) that, in reality, he knew had become wickedly corrupted. So he clearly forgot the principles by which he originally stood. I think he was seeking an expedient shortcut, not a principled or justified course of action.
Hey Nate! I’m glad we agree on the general point behind Rahab’s story. I hadn’t even thought of 1 Sam. 16, good one there.
As far as the Dent act and Bane’s actions go, I didn’t really see them as legitimate considerations for this dilemma. First, I don’t think either Gordon or Batman had the Dent act in mind when they made their decision. They seemed solely concerned with the criminals currently awaiting prosecution. Secondly, you’re right that Bane was able to use that letter as leverage for freeing the prisoners in Dark Knight Rises. But let’s face it, he was going to do that regardless of the knowledge of their lie or a letter to read. So, I think that should be weighed separately from whether the lie was justified or not.
Awesome point too on what Wayne wanted Batman to symbolize in Batman Begins vs. what he actually ends up symbolizing in Dark Knight. Thanks for the comments!
I think in a scenario like the one Batman and Gordon were presented it’d be important for us to meditate a moment and discern how we should handle the situation. God has said not to lie, but I think the reason lying is wrong is b/c it hurts others. What about a lie that AVOIDS hurting others?
Would there ever be any circumstances where God may actually be in favor of a lie?
Say you have a very sensitive, big-hearted co-worker who buys you a Christmas gift and when you open the box it’s a repugnant shirt, or sweater – and she asks you if you like it?
If you tell her you don’t like it, it will bring her to tears, etc. or you can lie and tell her you like it? Are you telling me that you think God would be more in-favor of telling the truth?
Sure, you could search for a middle ground and reply with something like, “It’s unique!” or “I appreciate it!” but what if she is the kind who can pick up on when someone isn’t being straight, and you have to tell her you like it, or don’t. What then?
Point being, I think God is against lying when it’s done for selfish reasons and motives, which is the large majority of the time; but I think there could be rare exceptions when unique situations arise.
But if I was Batman, I would not have claimed to have killed those people. I would’ve pinned it on The Joker. lol. He was ultimately responsible, anyway.
Ahhh, a third option! Nice, Gary! Why didn’t they think of that??? He sort of created Two-Face, who killed all those people under the guise of chance.
I don’t entirely disagree with your example on lying. That it’s only bad if it hurts others. Only problem I see is there is never any reason given in scripture for why not to lie (that I know of anyway). We have some examples where lying is justified, as I think I’ve proven with Rahab. Just need to be careful I guess with that reasoning. There are a lot of ways to convince yourself or others that you had to lie to avoid causing someone pain.
Thanks for the comment, Gary!
The problem with assuming lying is only wrong when it’s done for selfish reasons is God hasn’t given us that exception. The James passage said Rahab was justified by her works, sending out the spies by another way. It does NOT say she was justified by her lying. Assuming that we have the almighty wisdom to determine when it’s okay for us to disregard God’s commandment is playing God. The only scenario in which lying could be okay is when we have precedent showing that God’s people did and it was okay with God. I do not believe the scenario of Rahab applies in this instance because, again, she did not know God’s commandments. The inherent law of God as referred to in Romans 1 is referring to very broad ideas. People in general accept that it’s not okay to murder, to steal, or to cheat on your spouse. This doesn’t have to include lying, however. Different people have had different ideas on that. Even if it did apply, however, that doesn’t extend to Gordon and Batman’s situation. In Rahab’s situation (and that of the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1), it had to do with God’s people. It was protecting God’s messengers, and protecting God’s people. It had to do with God’s revealed plan for His people. In Gordon and Batman’s case, it was not about the revealed will of God. It was not about protecting God’s people. It was about the city’s criminals. That’s not to say it’s not good that they want to keep them locked up, but it’s a completely different animal. To lie in this case is to completely disregard God’s commands on the matter, not to mention a complete lack of trust in Him and the control that He has over the situation. It’s saying “God, I know you said you’ll handle it, but I think I have a better way.”
Logan, I think the lying is presumed and included in James’ praising of Rahab. Afterall, she cannot perform the work of sending out the spies without first lying about their location. So it doesn’t need to explicitly say she was justified by sending out the spies AND lying. All of it is included in the word “works”.
I see what you’re saying with your second part there about how Gordon and Batman’s situation isn’t dealing with the revealed will of God. However, that position would hold that the same lie Rahab told to protect the lives of the spies would not also be justified if a German told it to protect the lives of Jews if the Nazi police paid them a visit in WW2. I know that’s an extreme case, but I think the circumstances are the same, therefore the lie is justified in each case.
The case of Batman and Gordon was not in protecting people from genocide. Your argument also presents a slippery slope. It indicates that we have the power to decide when lying is right or wrong. And if that’s applicable to lying, why isn’t it applicable to stealing? To divorce? To adultery? To murder? To homosexuality? Does that not make us gods by our own definitions? If God has not given us an exception to His law, we ought not create one.
So, looking back on the position I adopted I can see an inherent flaw that I don’t like. If Batman takes the fall for Dent’s crimes, the criminals facing prosecution will still face justice. However, the victims of Dent’s crimes, and their families, will never see justice. Let’s face it, the cops aren’t going to catch Batman for these murders, and Dent will never be brought to answer for these crimes (at least in this world). So, the position I took leaves justice unfulfilled with respect to the victims of Dent’s actions.
Excellent write-up. I definitely love this website.
Thanks!