So the thing is Jason never asks Bruce to kill the Joker in UTRH. He asks why Bruce didn't kill him and questions Bruce's slippery slope argument but he doesn't tell Bruce to kill the Joker. Instead he tells Bruce he will kill the Joker and Bruce must choose between allowing him to do so or killing him to stop him. Jason is not asking Bruce to kill the Joker but to accept the killing of the Joker or he must kill the Jason to defend the Joker. 1/2

The sad thing is Bruce throws a Batarang in desperation. It doesn't seem like it is aiming for anything it just happens to hit a wall and ricochet. Also in the original story Jason never sets off a bomb not did he ever intend to set off a bomb. He tied the Joker to a chair with bombs so the Joker would not move while he was fighting Batman. Joker broke free after Jason was struck got his gun and fired at the explosives. Jason only planned for Bruce to do nothing or attack him. 2/2

okay so I will admit I misremembered the dialogue from utrh and that's on me for not getting up to check bc I spent nearly six hours being cat-upon but hey I have the comic next to me now and I'm even using a laptop instead of the shitty chrome mobile browser to type this up

so basically yes you are correct and I misremembered what happens in the scene as jason asking him to shoot either jason to stop him or the joker to kill him and while that's a great scene that's not the scene that actually happened. I was referencing the comic, not the movie; the movie's good, but I like the comic much better and I thought I was clear I was talking about the comic, so I'm not sure why the aside about the bomb was necessary, I don't really have much to say about the change in this context

I do feel more confused in a way now, though, as to your point, bc if it's about the issue of morality, either there is no difference between inaction (not preventing a killing) and action that leads to the same result (killing the same person) or there is and the inaction is better, so morally like. the same exact things are standing in between jason and being right? or even like we should be more on jason's side?

bc again from my actual irl pov not only is killing the joker wrong, but inaction that leads to his death is equally wrong - you are morally compelled as a human being to do whatever you can to stop the evil that is right in front of you as long as you are capable of it, and bruce is obviously capable of it. but within the fictional framework we're in, jason is asking his father to care about him. that's all he cares about. he places himself in a position where bruce can either admit he's going to let jason kill the joker, kill jason, or, unspoken but very real, he can kill the joker himself. but putting all that aside...

the reason he's doing this is still like what I said in the last ask, "there is no line drawn for jason between the fact that bruce didn’t avenge him and the fact that bruce didn’t prevent other people from dying". If anything, this idea is stronger when jason is just asking him to do the same thing he did before: let others die through inaction.

so yeah, factually I misremembered some of the important dialogue from this scene. but like, emotionally? jason still cares that bruce didn't kill the joker, and he still wants bruce to know why the joker is dying at his hands. the joker isn't going to die in some anonymous alleyway and be left to rot without jason confronting bruce first. because at least in utrh a random drug dealing pimp who's making everyone's life worse being killed by jason is a small favor he can give to the world. the joker, however, is standing, quite literally, in the way between bruce and jason. it's just... it's completely understandable, and within the framework of the story, morally justifiable.