Game Theory and the Philosphy of The Dark Knight

One of the common misconceptions of The Dark Knight revolves around the boat scene. Two boats, one filled with Gotham's most notorious criminals and the other filled with citizens of Gotham, are filled with explosives by the Joker's henchmen. The Joker provides the two boats with an ultimatum: either destroy the other boat by a certain time or the Joker will destroy both boats. Often, this situation is compared to the Prisoner's Dilemma, one of the most well known and popular games in game theory. There are two prisoners who are accomplices to the other. They have two choices: either confess to the crime or stay silent. If both prisoners confess to the crime, they are sentenced to 5 years in prison. If one prisoner confesses (and thus implicates the other) but the other stays silent, the prisoner who confessed is released from custody and the prisoner who stayed silent is sentenced to 10 years. However, if neither prisoner confesses, they are sentenced to 1 year in prison. So, it would be appear that the best situation is that neither prisoner confesses. But if one prisoner stays silent, the other prisoner has the incentive to confess to the crime, relieving himself of any time in jail. Since confessing is the better option regardless of what choice the other prisoner makes, both prisoners would rationally confess, but by doing so, they end up with 5 years of prison time each as opposed to 1 year, which is the outcome they would have if they cooperated.

The fatal flaw in the comparison between the Prisoner's Dilemma and the scenario in The Dark Knight is that not all outcomes can have a payout because of the essential impossibilty of one of the outcomes. If we were to build out the game, we would see that there are 2 players (the two ships) and 2 options (blow up the other ship or do nothing). This should lead to four outcomes, but one of the outcomes is essentially impossible in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. I think that the outcome where both players decide to blow the other player up is not realistically probable (though not impossible). If you were playing this game, you would not consider both players deciding to blow the other player up as an option. Unlike the Prisoner's Dilemma, The Dark Knight ship problem introduces an element of time. So in this game, you would have 3 options: you blow the other player up, the other player blows you up, or neither player blows up the other. While the Prisoner's Dilemma may not apply, the understanding we get from that game (and game theory) does allow us to delve deeper into one of the main ideas from that movie.

If in the Prisoner's Dilemma it is always better to confess, then we should hypothesize that one of the ships should have detonated the other ship. A rational person would value their survival over their death and not detonating the other ship will always lead in one's death in this game (barring an otherworldly power like Batman). However, both sides believed that not detonating the other ship is the better option. Assume the one ship does not opt to detonate the other (I'm going to make this assumption because the situation where both ships decide to detonate at the same time is implausible). The other ship could detonate or not detonate. We see in the film that the other ship does not choose the detonation because it has the better payoff, so survival is trumped by some other cause. I theorize that a rational person would detonate the other ship, but a moral person would not. Rather than live with burden of having killed an entire ship full of people, we would die knowing that we did the right thing. This idea is reminiscent of an oft quoted line said by Harvey Dent: "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." This binary morality drives the actions of Batman, Harvey Dent (and later Two-Face), and even the people on that ship. They could have survived by killing people, taking the role as the villain. But they saw that it would be better to die, heroically standing against the Joker's maniacal game.

The Last Airbender Series: The Fortuneteller and the Expectation from Prophecy

People love to know about their future. Many people want to know if they will live prosperous lives or fall in love. Others want to know if something bad will happen to them. But regardless of what the future holds for us, we want to know our future primarily because we now have a means to change it. The power of foresight is knowing exactly what will happen so that we can avoid it. But by knowing the future, it seems that we actively try to pursue this expectation of our future. We see this in The Fortuneteller.

One instance of this phenomenon is a throwaway joke. Sokka meets a man who had met with the fortune teller about when he will meet the love of his life. The fortune teller tells him that he will meet the love of his life while he is wearing red shoes. He subsequently always wears red shoes. Sokka, already skeptical of the mystical power of the fortune teller, laments that the prophecy will certainly come true if you will it so. This person forces his expected future to become his reality, showing that he is seemingly in control of his destiny. But here, this control is an illusion as the person already knows his destiny and changes his life according to it. The other instance is when the fortune teller predicts that the town will be safe from harm. Aang and Sokka realize that the volcano is going to erupt and that the fortune teller was incorrect. So Aang, Sokka, and Katara take it upon themselves to change the fortune teller's prediction. By doing so, they are able to avoid any catastrophe from the volcano. But, as one of the townspeople notes, the fortune teller was correct in stating that the town would be safe from harm. Here, there is no illusion of control. The Gaang were in control of their destiny and the destiny of the town.

The fortune teller makes a strong point near the end of the episode that captures this nicely. She tells Aang that he can shape his own destiny, much like he changed the clouds (thus altering her prediction). We are in as much control as we choose. We can force our fate upon ourselves, or we can fight against it, even if it is later revealed to be all for naught.

The Last Airbender Series: The Blue Spirit and the Value of Anonymity

“Behind this mask there is more than just flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea... and ideas are bulletproof.” One of the most popular quotes from Alan Moore's graphic novel V for Vendetta, this quote defines V's intentions for the tyrannical dystopian British Parliament. But it is important to know that the anonymity of V, caused solely by his Guy Fawkes mask, creates a symbol for revolution. If V were not anonymous, the revolution would not take flight. So what does Zuko's anonymity create? 

Zuko needs to be anonymous for more than his own safety. Obviously, if he were to reveal himself, he would branded as a traitor to the Fire Nation. But the Blue Spirit represents more than Zuko's alter ego. Much like Zuko's scar, it represents his conflict within himself. Zuko is hell-bent on finding the Avatar and regaining his honor after being banished by his father. But as the crown prince of the Fire Nation, he theoretically must also want the Avatar to be captured in order for the Fire Nation to win the war. But he doesn't want to capture the Avatar for the Fire Nation. He wants to capture the Avatar for himself. Does this mean that Zuko is against the Fire Nation? No, but it does affect Zuko's identity. If he were truly a royal member of the Fire Nation, he would gladly put aside his quest to capture the Avatar for the glory of the Fire Nation. But he cannot let that happen. So he puts on the mask and shows his inner conflict. He wants to rejoin the Fire Nation as their prince, but at the same time, he must act against the betterment of the Fire Nation. 

The mask perfectly represents this conflict by giving Zuko anonymity. Within the mask, he can be anything he wants. The pseudonym for Zuko's alter ego is the Blue Spirit and he pits that against the Fire Nation, placing the fiery red of the Fire Nation army against the opposing blue of the Blue Spirit. Though this juxtaposition could be coincidental, I don't think it was accidental. If you want to show how Zuko has to betray the Fire Nation in order to be welcomed back into the Fire Nation, what better way to do that than by posing Zuko in the opposite color of the Fire Nation? By making Zuko anonymous, he is allowed to be a traitor to the Fire Nation while also advocating for the Fire Nation as their prince.