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

First I need to add something I left out of my previous round: the link for facial expressions of shame[1].Anyhow, I'll start with some rebuttals to quotes from my opponent's argument that I feel are major points."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"." 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. "The Joker is neither good nor evil. He kills both drug dealers[1] and police[2]. He isn't after money either[3]."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'. "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'."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. "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."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."He had to awaken the world to its own contradictions."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. Thanks for reading.Source:[1] http://www.reading-body-language.co.uk...