The Dark Knight

I forget who said it, but someone said that today superhero movies and soap commercials fill the role of God.

Looking back, this feels shaped in many places by the War on Terror and the political discourse of that moment.

I do think the film poses an interesting question about the legitimacy of the judicial system. The courtroom scene near the beginning is telling here. Neither the witness nor Harvey Dent appeals to evidence or reasoned logic to support their arguments; instead, they defer to humor, enjoyment, and laughter. It suggests, I think, something similar to what Kafka explores in The Trial— that the legal apparatus and court system are not exceptions to what Freud calls the pleasure principle but are rather predicated on the perverse forms of enjoyment found in legal abstraction, humiliation, and sexualization of plaintiffs and defendants. That the legal apparatus, in other words, is contingent on the pleasure of those in power. Clarence Thomas is a case in point.
---
Harvey Dent's problem: he thinks about the world in terms of unconditional probability when it only functions in conditional probabilities, so he doesn't condition on the relevant variables when he should.
---
The scene at the end is essentially a type of prisoner's dilemma/cooperation game from game theory.

Let P be the prisoner boat, and C be the civilian boat, where the utility payoffs are (P,C)

The choices are Cooperate or Defect: to Cooperate is not to detonate the other boat, and to Defect is to detonate the other boat.

If there is Mutual Cooperation -- P and C both choose Cooperate -- then they all live. Say the utility payoff here is (100, 100)

If there is Mutual Defection -- P and C both choose to blow up the other boat -- then they all die. Say the utility payoff here is (0,0) because everyone dies.

If P chooses to Cooperate but C chooses to Defect, then let's say the utility payoffs are (0,200).

But if P chooses to Defect and C chooses to Cooperate, then let's say the utility payoffs are (200,0)

So each party has an incentive to Defect, even though the Pareto-optimal outcome is Mutual Cooperation.

But what's fascinating is that the Joker also says if no one does anything by midnight, then everyone will die. So, in the minds of the people on the boats, the payoff to Mutual Cooperation is (0,0), not (100, 100).

Why choose to Cooperate, then, in light of the fact that your utility payoff is going to be (0,0) if the Joker does follow his plan, and the only possible way to get a positive payoff is to Defect? I guess maybe the players on the boats were willing to agree that the necessary condition for everyone dying via mutual cooperation is the Joker following through on his plan. I guess they liked the odds of the Joker not following through on his plan? Idk. But interesting stuff nonetheless, and cool to know that this was essentially a game theory problem at the end of the film.