I am not the most sophisticated comic book reader, yet, any animated movies and series about superheroes (specifically Marvel and DC) I am a big of and make a habit of watching the latest creations.
A common element of the superhero and villain relationship involves the idea they are opposites (in one way or another). Superman and Lex Luther - Superman has super strength and a sense of justice, while Lex Luther has normal strength and only desires to be as powerful as possible, no matter the cost.
But, in this blog post, which is obviously about Batman, but not his counterpart, the Joker, and in a wider perspective, Batman actually can be argued to have committed far more evil than the Joker! The Joker is Batman's counterpart because he has no sense of right and wrong and does everything based on 'what would be the most chaotic thing to do to get a reaction.' Yet, to say the actions of the Joker, whom has killed, stolen and terrorized people is still less harmful than Batman's, will take a great argument, no doubt.
First, we must recall Batman's origins and a certain organization; The League of Shadows (LoS); these ninjas and assassins are those whom choose to seek justice from the shadows (behind the scene) therefore the organization has realized that is where most of the evil in the world takes place. So to defeat evil, at times, we must perform evil deeds. Killing a corrupt senator for instance; while killing is wrong, the Senator could have exploited, stolen and/or kept money which effected development for the entire system. Because of this one Senator, an entire group or people are effected and cannot develop, due to his/her greed.
But for the LoS it is not usually as small as one or two persons, no, they want to make a move that will ripple and create waves [of change] by their plots and actions. Mainly the organization wants to destroy the world that is most corrupt, all part of it.
Isn't this a good thing? Isn't defeating and destroying what is most corrupt and wrong with human nature, a benefit for the rest of humanity? If you could kill one man for a million to succeed, would you? If you wouldn't I fear you're either an idiot, or, you have never actually considered such a thought-experiment.
So while Batman defeats the LoS, over and over again, they are truly the counter-force to the political and/or corporate criminals taking over the world; through the means of silent-manipulative coercion and political control; the LoS literally doing evil for goodness sake.
Yes they used violence to defeat violence and corrupt politicians to defeat corrupt politicians, but they did so while the majority of the world doesn't care these shadow-organizations exist. Most do not care that a hand full of families control the world. And until they commit a 'crime' Batman cannot do anything due to his code; he must abide by the law, even if he breaks it with his own activities.
The LoS tries to bring balance to the world by 'evil' deeds and acts, and, Batman merely defeats individuals and groups (only momentarily, because he doesn't kill and they break out of prison eventually) and kicks them off the scale, while never actually creating any sort of real balance.
Batman, in his attempt to be good and noble, stops the LoS from their efforts to destroy those who seek to corrupt the world, only because they are willing to do what he is not; kill.
Had Batman ever killed the Joker, there would of been no more deaths and violence upon the Jokers pending escape from prison; had he killed him, he would of removed a great evil from the world, by an act of evil (evil for goodness sakes).
Yes, we must be careful with such decisions to perform evil with the intent for goodness, and that is why it is a LEAGUE of shadows - it is a group, an organization - not just some group of criminals looking for a pay-day. Their pay-day is knowing they are trying to tip the scale towards a balance.
While Batman stops the LoS, he stops them from stopping others whom do more harm than killing people. You kill someone, it's down and over, they suffer no more. However, if a corporation and political groups are involved in cheating people - Batman doesn't bat an eye lash, because they are technically committing no 'crime'. Yet, objectively, when a small body of people takes from a larger body of people (whether it's money, resources, land, or whatever) we can agree that that small body is in the wrong; 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'. When Batman stops the LoS those whom they initially sought to stop, keep going instead.
Batman gets to pact himself on the back for stopping assassins from killing people, but doesn't even care to notice how he helped those in power to become more powerful?
Batman, in the end, and especially noting how he is a billionaire himself, does no more good for the world than if he never existed. Had he never existed the LoS would of only became stronger and equally as threatening as those whom seek to profit from corruption (via politics and big business). The balance of good and evil would be real on earth, rather than a constant struggle against evil with only a few impressive moments of goodness.
Granted this is all fictional - I stand by this simple claim: in Batman's effort to not be evil, he allows evil to be perpetual.