I think it would be interesting to see what people thought of the moral issues brought up in Avengers: Infinity War.
This post may be full of spoilers so leave now if you haven’t seen it.
In the movie, Thanos wanted to wipe out half of the universe’ life because the universe has limited resources. He’s done this to another planet (Gamora’s) where he killed half the planet and now, all the children know are full bellies.
If a more prosperous future was at stake, was what Thanos did acceptable?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I thought Thano's reasoning was great (for the movie). Before going to see it my friends and I had been playing Far Cry 5.
In the game one of the bosses had the concept of culling the herd, sacrificing the weak, etc. The game does a great job of making you see the logic behind it. But when I saw Infinity War and saw that Thanos wanted sacrifice too, but his was an impartial and random sacrifice of the weak and strong alike, I was pretty much sold.
It also remind me of the short essay, A Modest Proposal.
Doesn't your Lord say.... "thou shalt not kill"...... unless its of course convenient for him to have you kill (children, commit genocides, etc)
there was nothing impartial about GOD culling the herd back then.....??
No. Well, not within the pretext of the movie anyway.
The entire purpose to Thanos' life was to collect the infinity stones to have unlimited power, including the power to change reality itself. While you might make a case that prior to collecting the final stones he was following some kind of positive moral code, the fact remains that AFTER attaining the last stone his power could have just as easily made the entire universe so prosperous that there would never need to be war, famine, or pestilence.
If Thanos could end life through this power, why couldn't he create life? Someone might give him the benefit of the doubt before collecting the final stone. At that point his power was limited to what he could physically achieve. That all goes out the window as soon as he set the final stone in his gauntlet. At that point he could have turned deserts into prime farmland or caused game to be more abundant just as easily as he wiped out half the universe at random..
My apologies to Maketakunai, I mixed up two posters names, so have deleted my response. Again my sincere apologies.
Was that meant for Breezy? Because it feels like it was. Don't want any confusion on who is the object of your verbal abuse.
No it was directed Maketakunai by mistake, I had mixed their username up with another poster. Again my sincerest apologies.
@ Sheldon;
"No it was directed Maketakunai by mistake, I had mixed their username up with another poster. Again my sincerest apologies."
No worries. I just figured you posted your other message to me in the wrong thread, LOL!
I totally agree about him being able to create plentiful accommodations for half the universe instead of destroying them. But it's still such a good movie with such cool ideas. I loved it!
I fail to see how it differs from the myths in the bible of your deity committing genocide?
Maybe you can explain the moral difference.
Thanos does it to gain Power and resources, God just does it.
Morally different.
While a mass genocide of that scale would free up resources for the remainder, it wouldn't take long to get back to overpopulation. Hell, we went from a few million in colonial America to 330 million today, in the span of 240 years. Plus, resources aren't the only factor in this equation; wellbeing is also comprised of psychological health. Mass death like this would surely leave near irreparable damage in that regard.
The better solution would be to increase resources, not eliminate consumers. Even just developing new tech to convert previously unusable items into products or food wouldn't be unrealistic. Imagine if he used the knowledge stone to learn all the mysteries of science, and used the others to will the answers into being so that we could have the most efficient machines, the fastest transportation, the healthiest and most abundant food, the best medicine, etc. But no, he chose to kill half the universe.
Quite a few friends have reported this movie is pretty boring, they were expect more action.
All that effort and sacrifice, and guess what? It doesn't take that long for a population to double its numbers. The poor guy has to do it all over every few decades! He should have looked into birth control. Then he could kick back and watch the sunsets.
I do agree with the idea that Thanos should have just increased the resources of the universe and all but seeing as somehow he didn’t see that option, I’d assume that wasn’t on the table.
I’d like to cite what Thanos claimed happened to Gamora’s planet where they’ve become more prosperous since he killed half he planet as opposed to what happened to Titan, his own home which became barren.
I guess the moral question would be, could what Thanos did be considered right if his main goal was to see the universe prosper? And to his defense, he has seen positive results from his past actions.
To quote Gamora, “but at what cost?”
Under atheism, how could it be argued that what Thanos did is objectively wrong?
I suspect you'll get a lot of different answers to that question, since atheism is a pretty broad tent. My answer:
I would not make that argument in the first place.
Under theism the same question. You can demonstrate no objective evidence a deity exists for a start You'd then have to demonstrate objective evidence you knew what that deity wanted. You'd then have to demonstrate objective evidence that what it wanted was moral.
So this objective morality argument from theists is as stupid as it is dishonest.
"Under theism the same question. You can demonstrate no objective evidence a deity exists for a start"
That wouldn't matter.
If God in fact exists, then there would be an objective good and objective evil and it would just be a question of do the actions of Thanos correspond to God's moral nature and commands. If they do, then Thanos is objectively good; if they don't, then he's objectively evil.
The atheist can only say, "it's my opinion that Thanos is evil" or "it's my opinion that Thanos is good."
That is far from clear. Many of the theists who post here endorse divine command theory, which is subjective not objective.
"That is far from clear. Many of the theists who post here endorse divine command theory, which is subjective not objective."
A command isn't subjective when it comes from a being that exists in and is the same in every possible world.
Sheldon "Under theism the same question. You can demonstrate no objective evidence a deity exists for a start"
myusernamekthx "That wouldn't matter....If God in fact exists, then there would be an objective good and objective evil"
Dear oh dear, I had missed this...he doesn't have even a tenuous grasp of what I meant. However you can't simply assert a deity exists, and that it is objectively moral. In order for the claim for objective morality to have any validity the existence of the deity would need to be objectively evidenced, and the claim that he knew what that deity wanted would also require objective evidence be demonstrated, then lastly he would have to demonstrate objective evidence that what the deity wanted was in fact moral. All he's done is repeat the original claim bless him.
This question need not be answered by addressing the question of God's existence.
Rather, the only thing whose existence needs to be debated is the one of objective good and evil.
We humans like to put ourselves in a special place. Where we play our own gods.
For instance there is a type of bird poison that makes the female birds infertile. It can reduce a bird population by 50 percent in 1 year as the adults die off and few to no babies are born. People will rationalize that the bird population was too great and they would all starve instead.
Still more humane than wiping out half of the universe's population in 1 minute before people could even say goodbye. Plus all the destruction as people disappear (planes falling out of the sky, cars crashing, critical responsibilities going incomplete etc.) Also how does this force decide which animal species gets its population cut in half? There were all kinds of aliens, all kinds of different super hero's. Groot is supposed to be a tree like person. Why did thanos not cut the tree population in half? But will happily kill one of the few tree people known? Certainly Groot's race was not over populating and creating to much resource burden.
Even among humans, there is great disparity in resource use. In the US, especially among the rich, more than half of all food produced for people to eat eventually gets thrown out uneaten somewhere along the process. 1 Jeff Bezos level rich person could easily consume more total resources for himself then 100 thousand of very poor people in Sahara Africa. If I was Thanos, and really concerned about resource use, I would wipe out the 10% or so of people that consume 50+ % of the world's resources, (this will be predominantly the rich.) And like a god, threaten I will come back and wipe out the very rich that horde the resources again in 10-20 years.
Damn it all I like the cut of your jib sir. We could wipe out the wealth without touching the wealthy, and we'd need no fictitious deities to do that by damn.
How about death duties as a vehicle? I see no earthly reason for inherited wealth and privilege. Giving one's children a start or helping hand is ok, but surely inheriting millions or even billions is obscene.
Agreed. Bill gates is leaving his heirs only a few million if I recall correctly, no one needs to inherit billions, a few million is more than enough to secure a great secure long life style placed in a trust that protects the funds (mostly from the person who inherits it.)
Unfortunately in the US progress has gone backwards, with estate taxes being wiped out late last year. Perpetuating a cycle of haves and have nots. I may come off as socialist, but I see no reason at all why any one person should have more than 10 million in wealth/assets. 100 billion Jeff Bezos is beyond obscene concentration of wealth. (Really any billionaire is.)
Gates and Buffett seem to be following in Carnegie’s footsteps in that respect.
I particularly like the fact that Buffet's children seem mainly interested is using his wealth to help eradicate poverty.
I am and always have been a socialist, I long ago stopped caring if this unpalatable to others. In the UK socialism like atheism isn't a big deal.
If there is any ethical principle, it is "do no harm". Knowingly causing harm is completely contrary to that.
Hypothetical trolley problems are idiotic if they assume infallibility. If you KNOW one action or inaction causes harm, but less harm than all the others, then of course, you should ensure the least amount of harm.
But in reality, as a human being, you do not know. I would say that if you wilfully murder or torture another individual, you cannot defend yourself by saying "the ends justify the means", because you have already compromised on the core ethical principle.