In defense of history's worst: The Joker's actions in The Dark Knight were justified (Part 2)

ClarificationAs previously agreed to, Con will simply say "Thank you for this debate" next round so that we have the same number of arguments. Summary of previous rounds Other than the five quotes he highlighted, Con seems to have agreed with everything else. RebuttalsI will address the points that my opponent has quoted one by one. My argument: "Whether The Joker has left the world in a better or worse place in your opinion than it was before him is irrelevant, the key idea is whether there was an "acceptable reason for the action taken."My opponent's rebuttal: Yes but the opinion of the outcome is the basis for rendering judgment on his actions' acceptability. Hitler had his reasons too, but the majority of the world doesn't consider him justified in his actions. So it should be with The Joker. We need to look at what would've happened if The Joker had been successful, and judge the acceptability of his actions on that. Which my opponent does later in his arguments, arguments which I will get to rebutting later in mine. My rebuttal: My opponent seems to have misunderstood what I had said. "outcome is the basis for rendering judgement on his actions' acceptability." I'm sorry, but we are not rendering judgement on his actions themselves, we are rendering judgement on the reasons for said actions. Furthermore, the Hitler analogy does not apply as I also believe Hitler was justified in his actions; something I will prove in the next debate in the series.My argument: "The Joker is neither good nor evil. He kills both drug dealers[1] and police[2]. He isn't after money either[3]."My opponent's rebuttal: Assuming this debate won't become one about the possibility of moral subjectivity, I think it's safe to say that The Joker is evil, at least by majority standards. Just because he kills drug dealers and burns money from the mob doesn't mean he 'evens out' or anything like that. Killing drug dealers denies them the possibility of rehabilitation in jail, and it renders judgment upon them without knowing their reasons for why they're in that business. My point is that this isn't black and white, and killing a drug dealer isn't necessarily 'white'. My rebuttal: Although that line was simply an introduction into my nihilism argument, I would like to clarify what I mean. I am not claiming that The Joker is a good guy for killing drug dealers, I am simply saying that The Joker belongs in a completely different category - he neither belongs to the good (police) or the bad (drug dealers). He's in a separate league of his own. He is the embodiment of chaos. My argument: "If we lose an inherent sense of 'good' and 'evil', there ceases to be conflict. This is the core of nihilism. Life is inherently meaningless, and the acceptance of this is to be enlightened. "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules." No one will be able to manipulate another based on these grandiose ideas of 'good'."My opponent's rebuttal: This seems nice on paper. In a world without ideas of good and bad nobody will have power over anybody, right? No, wrong. In a world without moral code, the animal instincts take over. Survival, and at the core of survival, selfishness. Just because nobody holds any concepts of right and wrong does not mean there will cease to be conflict. Look at the animal kingdom. There is no concept of right and wrong present there, and there's plenty of death. And even though there will be no moral code, there will still be manipulation. The strong versus the weak. That will be the replacement for today's moral code. The strong will control the weak, and manipulation will be present. People, no longer held back by their sometimes contradictory moral code, will act however they want. There will be chaos. My rebuttal: Firstly, I recognise that I made the mistake of not explaining what I meant by "there ceases to be conflict". In this regard I was talking about the conflict between good and evil. Conflict over these moral structures and values that we adhere to more dearly than life itself - as seen in the ferry scene. The rest of my opponent's argument is actually quite spot on in its description of nihilism. "Survival, and at the core of survival, selfishness." Exactly - those are the things that are ingrained in our condition, we are simply restricting ourselves with moral values needlessly. What is wrong with acting selfishly in order to survive? That is the key to the existence of any animal - survival instinct. The Joker was trying to help us return to our roots and recognise what we truly are - animals. Yes, humans are part of the animal kingdom as well, an expression Con loves to use. In terms of the "Strong versus the weak", this will only happen when resources run out on Earth, as there is no reason to kill "cops" because they won't stop you from doing whatever you're doing. Sure, the weak may die out relatively quickly, but that was how it was meant to be all along. That is how animal species have survived for so long - how humans, until recently, have survived for so long.My argument: "The people on the 'good' boat obviously wanted to blow up the other ship, but only when no one was watching. When people didn't have to reveal what they voted for. But when someone has to come up and press the button, no one could, because other people were watching." My opponent's rebuttal: Even if that's the case, that doesn't mean The Joker is right for trying. If this is the kind of world he wants, where one boat blows up the other, then we're better off with this one, even if some of our rules are stupid or at times contradictory. My opponent has said a couple times that The Joker is justified because he's working for the greater good. What The Joker wanted for those two ferries is an extension of what he wants for the whole world. Think about how much pain and death that would bring about. Compared to our current world, that is not in the interests of the greater good. My rebuttal: My opponent seems to completely misunderstand The Joker's motive - which is precisely why we need this kind of hero in the real world. If he was able to complete the "social experiment/demonstration", both boats would've blown up and everyone would've died. If the whole human race acted like this in every situation, we would go extinct. It goes against our fundamental survival instincts to persevere as a race. If The Joker has to blow up one or two boats to save the world, he'll do it. The ultimate good is the survival and growth of the human race - and that cannot happen while we are clouded by these so called social constructs and moral values.My argument:"He had to awaken the world to its own contradictions."My opponent's argument: Here is, in my opinion, my opponent's thesis statement. I believe I've already sufficiently shown what a nihilistic world would actually be like(the animal kingdom). Therefore, The Joker did not have to awaken the world to its own contradictions. My argument: As I have alluded to in my rebuttals above, people clearly don't know what a nihilistic world would actually be like. My opponent keeps trying to separate humans from animals, but what really differentiates us apart from the fact that we have a higher intellect? As long as we fail to acknowledge this point and delude ourselves in saying we are some how better than other animals, there will continue to be manipulation and abuse of these moral values that we hold is such high esteem.ConclusionAs I have effectively demonstrated in my arguments, The Joker is more than justified in his actions. In fact, I would say that he was not only justified - he was a hero. You do not have to recognise nihilism as a correct worldview, you do not have to acknowledge that his actions were the only way for him to get his message across - you simply need to acknowledge they had their merits.I would like to thank voters for reading this and my opponent for a fascinating debate. The makers of the film must all have been philosophers.