Hi everybody. Long time lurker, but I finally decided to step out of the shadows to comment. I have pondered long enough about this apparent contradiction in Bruce's character. From my point of view, not acting to prevent a death can be considered murder, it's a deliberate action to not save a life. However, I believe this is a very gray area for the character and a very difficult choice to make, and to make an accurate judgement of his actions, one has to take into account the circumstances.
For starters, Batman was just beginning. He may thought at that moment that was the right thing to do, and he had his reasons. Ra's was decided to destroy Gotham City, he had a chance to redeem himself (given that Bruce saved him earlier), and there is the aforementioned reason that he destroyed the controllers of the train. I'm not willing to believe that Ra's couldn't saved himself from the predicament he was, just like Bruce, he could find a way out. I don't believe Bruce didn't think that too. Given that, Ra's just resigned to his the fate he drove into himself.
Also, Bruce knew that he could not save someone who does not desire to be saved, because he had done it with Ra's before, and he "didn't listen". Ra's choose to believe that Bruce just "burned his house and left him for dead". He choose not to be saved. So "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" gets a whole new meaning in the sense that Ra's didn't want to be saved. He was beaten, if Bruce had saved him, it would further his humiliation and choice. Both knew that Ra's could had saved himself, he just choose not to.
On the other hand, as the character of Bruce developed on The Dark Knight, we see Bruce at first very confident, and a little conceited. One could say that the events The Joker put into motion made him reevaluate his methods. The Joker thrived on violence and aggression, and was driven to make a point, everyone was the same as him. Life was meaningless, so Bruce had to prove his foe wrong, even in the impossible moral dilemmas he was put into by him, and even Two-Face. Like in his case, I don't think Bruce's intention was to kill Harvey. He was tired to the extreme and had to make a choice in order to save one life, not because one was precious than the other one, he just did what he could. If he had the power to save them both, he would had done it.
So by the end of the Dark Knight we see a Batman fully formed, battered but not beaten. Taking the blame for Harvey's crimes made his victory. In a way, it was a penance for the consequences of his actions. It was bittersweet, (contrary to all the opinions of the film being "dark and hopeless"). The Batman at the end of the Dark Knight may had a made a different choice, if he was in the case of the first film ending.
So bottom line, Bruce's character grows up in the films, after all, it is his story. He made mistakes, he had to make impossible choices and had to discern what is best for Gotham. In a very human way, Bruce remind us of our fallible condition, but is and example of how we can learn from our mistakes, of how we can rise again if we fall, and how even in the darkness we can have a little hope.
Just my two cents.
For starters, Batman was just beginning. He may thought at that moment that was the right thing to do, and he had his reasons. Ra's was decided to destroy Gotham City, he had a chance to redeem himself (given that Bruce saved him earlier), and there is the aforementioned reason that he destroyed the controllers of the train. I'm not willing to believe that Ra's couldn't saved himself from the predicament he was, just like Bruce, he could find a way out. I don't believe Bruce didn't think that too. Given that, Ra's just resigned to his the fate he drove into himself.
Also, Bruce knew that he could not save someone who does not desire to be saved, because he had done it with Ra's before, and he "didn't listen". Ra's choose to believe that Bruce just "burned his house and left him for dead". He choose not to be saved. So "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" gets a whole new meaning in the sense that Ra's didn't want to be saved. He was beaten, if Bruce had saved him, it would further his humiliation and choice. Both knew that Ra's could had saved himself, he just choose not to.
On the other hand, as the character of Bruce developed on The Dark Knight, we see Bruce at first very confident, and a little conceited. One could say that the events The Joker put into motion made him reevaluate his methods. The Joker thrived on violence and aggression, and was driven to make a point, everyone was the same as him. Life was meaningless, so Bruce had to prove his foe wrong, even in the impossible moral dilemmas he was put into by him, and even Two-Face. Like in his case, I don't think Bruce's intention was to kill Harvey. He was tired to the extreme and had to make a choice in order to save one life, not because one was precious than the other one, he just did what he could. If he had the power to save them both, he would had done it.
So by the end of the Dark Knight we see a Batman fully formed, battered but not beaten. Taking the blame for Harvey's crimes made his victory. In a way, it was a penance for the consequences of his actions. It was bittersweet, (contrary to all the opinions of the film being "dark and hopeless"). The Batman at the end of the Dark Knight may had a made a different choice, if he was in the case of the first film ending.
So bottom line, Bruce's character grows up in the films, after all, it is his story. He made mistakes, he had to make impossible choices and had to discern what is best for Gotham. In a very human way, Bruce remind us of our fallible condition, but is and example of how we can learn from our mistakes, of how we can rise again if we fall, and how even in the darkness we can have a little hope.
Just my two cents.