Infinity War Morality [Spoiler]

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
JoC's picture
Infinity War Morality [Spoiler]

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.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I thought Thano's reasoning

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.

Charvak's picture
Doesn't your Lord say....

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.....??

Maketakunai's picture
No. Well, not within the

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..

Sheldon's picture
Yeah but you're an ignorant

My apologies to Maketakunai, I mixed up two posters names, so have deleted my response. Again my sincere apologies.

Jared Alesi's picture
Was that meant for Breezy?

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.

Sheldon's picture
No it was directed

No it was directed Maketakunai by mistake, I had mixed their username up with another poster. Again my sincerest apologies.

Maketakunai's picture
@ Sheldon;

@ 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!

Sheldon's picture
I fail to see how it differs

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.

Terminal Dogma's picture
Thanos does it to gain Power

Thanos does it to gain Power and resources, God just does it.

Morally different.

Jared Alesi's picture
While a mass genocide of that

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.

Terminal Dogma's picture
Quite a few friends have

Quite a few friends have reported this movie is pretty boring, they were expect more action.

Greensnake's picture
All that effort and sacrifice

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.

JoC's picture
I do agree with the idea that

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?”

myusernamekthx's picture
Under atheism, how could it

Under atheism, how could it be argued that what Thanos did is objectively wrong?

Nyarlathotep's picture
myusernamekthx - Under

myusernamekthx - 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.

Sheldon's picture
Under theism the same

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.

myusernamekthx's picture
"Under theism the same

"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."

Nyarlathotep's picture
myusernamekthx - If God in

myusernamekthx - If God in fact exists, then there would be an objective good and objective evil...

That is far from clear. Many of the theists who post here endorse divine command theory, which is subjective not objective.

myusernamekthx's picture
"That is far from clear. Many

"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's picture
Sheldon "Under theism the

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.

JoC's picture
This question need not be

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.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.