Should utilitarians save a drowning child? Push a fat man into a trolley? Kill a man for his organs? No, they get gored by a bull while we all laugh. That's philosophical consistency right there.

"At the heart of Batman's being, like all theater kids, is a boundless narcissism that eats away at his core."

Many versions of Batman have a strict "no killing" rule, which is exactly the kind of intuition the Trolley Problem is attacking. Why is it different to actively kill someone vs passively letting five people die? In particular, Batman's version seems to be a sort of "honor code", which something close to a moral system, but it is entirely inward looking. In other words, fulfilling the honor system doesn't do good for the world, it elevates the status of the honorable man. In a sense it's the worst possible way to answer a moral question, "I want to kill the five people because I personally would lose something (my honor)".
Also its pretty showy to dress up as a bat. One might even call him a weirdo.

Schopenhauer wasn't so much as a "glass half empty" kind of guy, but more of a "everything in the world is terrible including this stupid glass" kinda of guy.

Schopenhauer was a "philosophical skeptic", but not in a "glass half empty" kind of way. He wasn't looking at the things in the world and seeing us as not having enough, but looking at the things we have and saying that they are structurally built in such a way to cause despair. It isn't that the glass is half empty, but that the glass being full contains emptiness within it. It will always be empty in the end, so it doesn't matter how full it is. It always ends the same, with us drinking it and either being bored or wanting more. We can never be satisfied no matter how full the glass is.

always remember when you are stealing a Giant Turkey to, at the last second, intend to do it virtuously, and you'll be fine.