Batman vs. Superman — an age-old rivalry between two of America’s greatest superheroes. Yet why are we drawn to favor one defender of justice over the other, and what might this say about our approach to morality and the ethics of decision-making?
Beloved NYU lecturer and expert on the ethics of decision-making, Michael Schidlowsky, breaks down how these iconic characters reflect two different ways of thinking ethically, asking: Is it preferable to have a core set of beliefs that you stick to no matter what (like Superman)? Or should you take your decisions as they come, evaluate the situation, and decide based on the given consequences (like Batman)? Michael analyzes these two approaches (i.e., deontologism vs. consequentialism) to bring decision-making to life in a new, fresh setting.