Heath Ledger's Joker Refutes Secular Humanism

In sequence with two other essays I've written, both of them surrounding the issue of individual responsibility within secular morality, one alluding to ideas such as atheists being delusional about morality, and the other being one in which I vented about the problems of secular humanism, I began to realize why the Joker is considered one of the best characters ever created, and one that immediately appeals to all of us, even across various mediums and interpretations. I have also previously written about Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, which I could use to make my point, but Heath Ledger's version fits a bit better here, and even still, I could instead mention the countless individuals in history who have taken on the Joker's philosophy, whether they realized it or not. But just what is that philosophy? It's simply to find your own meaning in life and to enjoy it to the fullest before you inevitably succumb to death, after which you will cease to exist. In other words, if life is finite, why should you ever deny yourself this or that pleasurable experience? However, if the pleasure in question is, well, questionable, such as causing wanton chaos just for fun, then you might find yourself surrounded by all sorts of barriers towards achieving it. But what if you could sneak up past those barriers, or what if you could outright destroy them? Or what if you simply didn't care about getting caught and punished afterwards? Then you'd be exactly like the Joker. And what would then happen to you in a secular world? Apparently nothing, because apparently if you aren't ready to play by the rules, then secular humanists simply don't wanna play with you either... And I thought my arguments were bad.

All it takes is one bad day... That's the key sentence to describing the Joker's multiple choice origin story. The idea behind it would be that civilization is something of an illusion. We all live bound to it through rules and regulations forced upon us, whether it be through the way we were raised, or through the social rules enforced by those around us, or even through laws enforced by the power of the state. But if all those limitations were to disappear, how confident are you that you'd remain the exact same? Because you'd never steal, you'd never cheat, you'd never kill, you'd never, ever be a bad person, would you? Of course not... But if you're so afraid of being stolen from, of being cheated, of being killed, of having bad people do bad things unto you, then why aren't you wondering if maybe you're a bad person too? Why is it that if society were to collapse it's only other people who would be bad, it's only them who would need the police and the state to keep them in check? Truth is, the only difference between you and them is that they've had their bad day already. If the circumstances changed ever so slightly you'd join them, you'd give in to your innermost desires and you'd do whatever the hell you wanted. And why shouldn't you? Why should any single person be denied his or her desires? Why can't you just have it all?

You see, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be... I'll show ya, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.

Secular humanists, and even just about anyone with any common sense, will say that it's simply not fair. You can have all you want if, and only if, achieving it doesn't harm anyone else. It seems fine and logical because no one would want their own well-being harmed either, we'd feel it was very unfair if someone just took from us what they wanted and nothing came of it. But what if it was the other way around? What if it was you getting to take what you want from someone else with impunity? Why should you deny yourself that power? Because you're good? Because you're just? Are you sure about that? I'm inclined to believe you only think those things because we're talking in hypothetical terms here. Could you truly resist the urge to cheat the system and get away with it? I'm inclined to believe you couldn't, and that sort of temptation is forever inherent in human nature. There's a reason why doors have locks, and a bigger reason why we keep the key so close to our chests... Well then, the Joker is interesting because his thing is precisely giving in to all of his desires, he had his bad day and now he will set out to do whatever the hell he wants. And how does society stop him? I suppose there would only be four ways – by preventing him from becoming the Joker in the first place, by creating systems that prevent him from acting out after he became the way he is, by forcefully removing him from society after his crimes are committed, and lastly, by killing him.

You know, they're schemers... Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are.

The first one doesn't quite work, both because he already became that way, so we can't really turn back time, but also because it could well be that deep down everyone is already a little bit like him, they simply haven't awakened it. Then again, even trying very hard to save people before they are lost, someone always falls through the cracks. As to the second one, yes, those systems help quite a bit, but they only help in the sense that they filter out those who don't have the guts to press on. Regarding the third, that's where Batman comes in, I suppose, but weirdly enough, for a guy like the Joker, being chased by Batman is something he actually cherishes, it's just part of the fun. And the fourth, well, if you kill him, which he kinda won't mind that much if you do, you are opening the door to a whole lot of nastiness... At a certain point who determines that an individual in a secular society is no longer worthy of living? Who makes that call? Someone will have to, or even a group of people if it's decided that the blame ought to be shared, but that's still a higher authority. At the end of the day, any secular society needs to attribute supreme powers to someone, and I just don't see where or why we could somehow build a society on the inherent reason that human beings possess when there are, in a sense, rational human beings out there like the Joker. The way I see it, believing in the virtues of human reason this much can only be done by faith.

The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.

The reason then as to why I think it doesn't work, as well as the reason why I think the Joker completely smashes all of secular humanism, is because though we are social creatures, we are also individualistic creatures. That is to say, we are forced to live in groups, but at the end of the day every one of us is one single individual. I can't live life in your place, and you can't live life in mine. So when an immorality pops up, when the opportunity to take an unfair advantage presents itself, and if we reason we have a strong chance of getting away with it, why should any of us deny ourselves? Rationally speaking, we simply shouldn't give in to our impulses or else society eventually collapses, but really, so what?... Within religious systems this logic doesn't work though, because even if nobody else knows about the crime, God will always know, and our immoral actions won't be a mere crime, they'll be a sin. Because a crime is always based on the country you're in, on your circumstances, on your intent, on the damage you caused and even on the size of your wallet. But sin is always sin, and there's nothing you could bribe God with. On the other hand though, what could you say to prevent the Joker from doing what he does? How do you take a man who just wants to watch the world burn and teach him to believe in something so abstract and bizarre as the common good?

– This city just showed you that it's full of people ready to believe in good.

– Until their spirit breaks completely.

The secular humanist makes his claim by arguing that, if we agree on some very basic and seemingly universal principles, and if we apply the tiniest bit of reason to them, we can figure out the correct way to live in society. That correct way would be something like maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering, but doing so in a balanced manner where one person's search for well-being, or pleasure if you'd like, doesn't harm another person's search for the same, nor does it ruin their plans to avoid suffering. But that's all scheming, isn't it? We can, and indeed for the most part we do, agree on that, but what if we just agree to disagree? What if someone comes along who simply wants to do whatever he finds best, whatever he finds the most fun, and will stop at nothing to do precisely that? What if he overwhelmingly prefers to lose his freedom by being thrown in jail, or even to shorten his lifespan by being executed? What if he decides that to die without ever taking a life is not worth eighty years of boring living? There's just no answer to a man like that, the closest you'd get would be calling him a madman and moving on with your life, but we could only move on with our lives by ending his. A man like that couldn't possibly continue living in normal society, regardless of what the word “normal” truly means, and thus he can't stick around. But what is the philosophical basis according to which you determine that he is the irrational one here? And even more so, how many normal people are close to having their bad day?

Memories are what our reason is based upon. If we can't face them, we deny reason itself! Although, why not? We aren't contractually tied down to rationality! There is no sanity clause! – The Killing Joke

And that's it, I think that's what it boils down to... You often hear casual atheists saying they're not perfect but that they try to be good people. Well, excuse me for giving a damn but I'm not so sure you're trying all that much. When nobody else is looking, when there's a pretty good chance you'll get away with it, when the convenient path looks so much better than the moral one, or even when it's between your well-being and someone else's, just how good a person are you then? I'm inclined to believe that, like all of your fellow mammals, you're not a good person at all. At the end of the day, as much as we can talk about humanism, we're animals just like all others. Only difference is we have the tiniest bit of structure around us to prevent us from delving into complete chaos. But as soon as that structure collapses, or even if it buckles the tiniest bit, then we'll see how far those pretty words can take us.