New Avengers #21 Review (w/spoilers)

[brainwasher]

Again, I am not saying that you are responsible for "killing" them. I am saying you are responsible for letting them die, which is undoubtedly the case. And you seem to forget, yet again, that the "one life" would NOT have been saved by inaction - it would have died anyway with the rest. So you're actually saying that you "have no right to say if 9,999 lives are more valuable than zero life".

I don't understand why people in this forum always speak in absolutes about this matters. I don't mean you specifically or who has your opinion but also who has the opposite one. It's enough to study a bit of philosophy and ethics to see that there isn't a clear answer about this issues but only opinions. The smarter minds that ever lived spent decades thinking about these problematics and the only thing that can be said for sure it's that there are valid reasons in both fields usually when it comes to ethics and moral.

For example, one can say that sacrificing 10 to save 1000 is right. Well, it's not, it's just a pragmatistic view of the problem. It depended by the fact that one assign a mathematically value to lives so 100 > 1. Not everyone agrees with the fact that the value of life or lives can be computed mathematically and if one study a bit will realize that there are valid reason to think lives can be added or subtracted like potatoes.

I guess that would be smarter at a certain point to agree to disagree than keep repeating the same thing over and over again in the illusion that is right and the other can be convinced by means of repetition, no?

[brettc1]

Well if anyone was gonna be the one to do it, it was gonna be him. Though Hickman had me going for a moment, thinking that maybe T'challa would go through with it. All in all, a great issue that shows that when push comes to shove, none of them can willingly condemn an entire alternate Earth to death, except you know you.

Indeed.

Namor is the biggest a-hole among the Illuminati.

Color me stunned.

Mind you, Strange is not far behind. Multiple homicides to his credit - sad.

[brettc1]

I think it's an oversimplification of what happened but yes I do agree on the latter part.



Hmm I didn't read it that way. I just saw it as him trying to lure her into an alliance. But reading it as flirting makes it the funniest part of the issue.

Oh I am sure Namor will wax loquacious about how he is the only one among them with any stones, but its just the same sort of speech you would get from Doom, Kang, or Apocalypse. Those impressive pecs don't mean squat in the face of murdering billions.

[brettc1]

I'll put aside your complete conjectures on what these historical figures would have done; no, the fault will partially be yours - not exactly that they're dead, but that they weren't saved, since you could have saved them. You deliberately chose not to save 9,999 people out of 10,000. That's on you.

Yes, its on him.

And he did well.

[ShaokhaN]

I don't understand why people in this forum always speak in absolutes about this matters. I don't mean you specifically or who has your opinion but also who has the opposite one. It's enough to study a bit of philosophy and ethics to see that there isn't a clear answer about this issues but only opinions. The smarter minds that ever lived spent decades thinking about these problematics and the only thing that can be said for sure it's that there are valid reasons in both fields usually when it comes to ethics and moral.

For example, one can say that sacrificing 10 to save 1000 is right. Well, it's not, it's just a pragmatistic view of the problem. It depended by the fact that one assign a mathematically value to lives so 100 > 1. Not everyone agrees with the fact that the value of life or lives can be computed mathematically and if one study a bit will realize that there are valid reason to think lives can be added or subtracted like potatoes.

I guess that would be smarter at a certain point to agree to disagree than keep repeating the same thing over and over again in the illusion that is right and the other can be convinced by means of repetition, no?

I don't mind him having a different opinion - if he'd rather let 9,999 people die than zero people die, fine with me. What I do object to is misrepresenting the issue at hand - at least acknowledge the facts of the matter and acknowledge your responsibility of choosing not to let these people live if that's your decision.

Your mention of "sacrificing 10 to save 1000" is, by the way, skewed - for this to be a correct analogy, the ten people would actually have to be part of the 1000 people as well.

[ShaokhaN]

Yes, its on him.

And he did well.

The TDK scene had three outs which were absent from the incursion the Illuminati were facing: 1. he's bluffing, 2. someone will stop him in time, 3. if there are explosives, they won't necessarily go off/kill us.

[brainwasher]

I don't mind him having a different opinion - if he'd rather let 9,999 people die than zero people die, fine with me. What I do object to is misrepresenting the issue at hand - at least acknowledge the facts of the matter and acknowledge your responsibility of choosing not to let these people live if that's your decision.

Responsibility is not guilt. This is not a casa of failure in duty of care because nobody can be asked to act illegally and unethically in order to save someone under is care. Different rule can be in place in particular situation like law enforcement or war but that's not the case of self–proclaimed law enforcers fighting self–proclaimed wars. This is to say that in thousand of years of philosophical thinking and law making humanity has never seen fit to think someone responsible for actions made by another entity. I don't see why this should be different. As I said in my previous post, it's just your opinion nothing objective.

[QUOTE=ShaokhaN;366667Your mention of "sacrificing 10 to save 1000" is, by the way, skewed - for this to be a correct analogy, the ten people would actually have to be part of the 1000 people as well.[/QUOTE]

Your mention of "sacrificing 10 to save 1000" is, by the way, skewed - for this to be a correct analogy, the ten people would actually have to be part of the 1000 people as well.

Dialectically speaking this does not make any difference. The issue at hand is if sacrificing the few to save the most can be morally justified. If they are a group or two doesn't make any difference ethically speaking. If you are put in front of 1000 people and asked to kill 10 to save the rest or put in front of a group of 1000 people and another of 10 and asked to kill the latter group to save the former, where is the difference?

In addition, the way you categorize them all as part of a whole does not make sense. What they have in common to be referred as a whole? That they are all part of two universes? The fact that the universes are two already make hard to make a categorization, you should at least consider them two large groups of sentient beings. Are they all humans? No, because the universe hosts thousands of different forms of life. It's really different to logically justify considering trillions of the more disparate forms of life coming from two different universes a category. By the way, logically speaking the moment you make the choice to sacrifice 7 billions of people to save trillions you are the one that split them in two groups, you actually "sacrifice billions to save trillions".

Actually, in the case of this story, for how categories are created in philosophical and mathematical logic you have an almost infinite amount of categories of which you choose to sacrifice one (human beings of one of the two parallel Earths) to save many.

[ShaokhaN]

Responsibility is not guilt. This is not a casa of failure in duty of care because nobody can be asked to act illegally and unethically in order to save someone under is care. Different rule can be in place in particular situation like law enforcement or war but that's not the case of self–proclaimed law enforcers fighting self–proclaimed wars. This is to say that in thousand of years of philosophical thinking and law making humanity has never seen fit to think someone responsible for actions made by another entity. I don't see why this should be different. As I said in my previous post, it's just your opinion nothing objective.

I already addressed your objection several times. I did not say that he would be responsible for killing them. I said he would be responsible for not saving them, since that is clearly a decision which was his to made - that's an objective fact, not an opinion.

Dialectically speaking this does not make any difference. The issue at hand is if sacrificing the few to save the most can be morally justified. If they are a group or two doesn't make any difference ethically speaking. If you are put in front of 1000 people and asked to kill 10 to save the rest or put in front of a group of 1000 people and another of 10 and asked to kill the latter group to save the former, where is the difference?

It does make a difference, because in the second scenario you weight ten lives against 1000 other lives, while in the first scenario you weight ten lives against the same ten lives plus 990 lives. This means that in the first scenario, the ten lives will end anyway. That's the baseline. This makes your choice "saving zero life" vs "saving 990 lives".

In addition, the way you categorize them all as part of a whole does not make sense. What they have in common to be referred as a whole? That they are all part of two universes? The fact that the universes are two already make hard to make a categorization, you should at least consider them two large groups of sentient beings. Are they all humans? No, because the universe hosts thousands of different forms of life. It's really different to logically justify considering trillions of the more disparate forms of life coming from two different universes a category. By the way, logically speaking the moment you make the choice to sacrifice 7 billions of people to save trillions you are the one that split them in two groups, you actually "sacrifice billions to save trillions".

It absolutely makes sense - the population of any Earth is part of the population of that Earth's universe. The fact that only a small part of the universe's population is human is utterly irrelevant - the point is that if the universe is destroyed, the lives of the inhabitants of that universe's Earth will be destroyed as well.

Yes, you do split them in two groups, but like I said, one is part of the other.

Actually, in the case of this story, for how categories are created in philosophical and mathematical logic you have an almost infinite amount of categories of which you choose to sacrifice one (human beings of one of the two parallel Earths) to save many.

Yes, because the only possible choice to save many is to sacrifice that particular category.

[loke13]

This is the same company Marvel that not long ago declared in its comics that the Hulk had not killed a single person during his rampages. Not one.

I'm now dead certain the "Hickman deboot" is coming at the end of Hickman's Avengers run. As Hickman has been writing, the Multiverse will die. Something will arise to take its place. And a lot of what happened during Hickman's run including the Incursions will be debooted to have never happened. I'm also certain now the Illuminati and Avengers will journey back to the origin of the Incursions and stop that as well.

Lets not forget that this is the same Marvel that 16 million mutants stay dead at the end of Morrison's run.

[brettc1]

The TDK scene had three outs which were absent from the incursion the Illuminati were facing: 1. he's bluffing, 2. someone will stop him in time, 3. if there are explosives, they won't necessarily go off/kill us.

None of which are known to the people on the boat. They make their decision and fully expect to die.

[brainwasher]

I already addressed your objection several times. I did not say that he would be responsible for killing them. I said he would be responsible for not saving them, since that is clearly a decision which was his to made - that's an objective fact, not an opinion.

For something to be "objective" a strong external validation is needed. Universal ethics are regulated by laws in almost all the countries of the world, from murder to rape to civil rights anything is governed by legislations. I consider laws the laws that are in place in the civilized western countries, because is where I grew up and learned the value we, more or less, all share (laws in places like India or many Islamic countries are a world apart, they tell you, for example, that you have to publicly stone your daughter to death if you discover she's been raped, if we go by these rules anything is possibile).

Well, in the case of the example you've made the person who kills an innocent to save ten will still be considered responsible of that killing, judged and convicted. If the person choice to avoid killing the one and let everyone die for the law he won't be considered responsible at all, both the responsibility and the guilt will be on the person that created the situation, that will be judged and convicted for multiple murders. This is the view of all the legislation of countries we call civilized and almost two billions of people live following and agreeing to this principle. You are still entitled to a different opinion, but it's just your opinion, there is nothing objective in it.

It does make a difference, because in the second scenario you weight ten lives against 1000 other lives, while in the first scenario you weight ten lives against the same ten lives plus 990 lives. This means that in the first scenario, the ten lives will end anyway. That's the baseline. This makes your choice "saving zero life" vs "saving 990 lives".

I can't think of lives that way without feeling shallow and in bad taste. 1000 lives, 10 lives, 990 lives…lives are not candies or wooden sticks, you try to reduce to a statistical problem something that in its nature is not statistics, you can't mix mathematics and ethics anymore that I can mathematically add Apple to Oranges because I like the result.

It absolutely makes sense - the population of any Earth is part of the population of that Earth's universe. The fact that only a small part of the universe's population is human is utterly irrelevant - the point is that if the universe is destroyed, the lives of the inhabitants of that universe's Earth will be destroyed as well.
Yes, you do split them in two groups, but like I said, one is part of the other.
Yes, because the only possible choice to save many is to sacrifice that particular category.

About that, I can only tell to study a bit what categorization really is. You keep using words and principles assigning them arbitrary meanings that are not the ones we universally share. When one does that, any communication is impossibile. If you use "all" as the common factor than it's obvious that everything is part of the category "all" but categories exists exactly for the opposite reasons and works the opposite ways.

[ShaokhaN]

None of which are known to the people on the boat. They make their decision and fully expect to die.

Of course they were known to the people on the boats. Those are three basic possibilities, none of which exist for the Illuminati.

[Mark]

I might have miss-understood, but not deliberately. Returning to your original question then.

Answer me this: there are 10,000 people in front of you. You hold a gun. If you do not do anything, the ten thousand people and you will die in 30 seconds. There is strictly no way out. There is no possibility to find a third way at this point. If you shoot the gun and kill one person, you get to live and the other 9999 people get to live. You have absolutely no other possible action than firing the gun or not doing anything, and the 10,000 + you WILL die if you don't do anything in the ten seconds. What do you do?

Again I do nothing and I have no responsibility. If I shoot I surrender myself, becoming no more than a limb or a tool for the force that is going to kill and having left to myself only the choice of who lives and who dies. It is within my right to turn the gun on myself which I'd consider doing, but it is not within my right to choose which one of the unfortunates dies so that the rest may live. If you said that the 10,000+ consisted of 9,999 orcs and one princess I still wouldn't have the right to decide. If you give me no choice then no choice is the choice that I will make. I will stand there and die with everyone else no matter if there is an afterlife or oblivion awaiting me.

[Mark]

Funny choice of word...responsibility.

Did Peter's inaction relieve him of responsibility in Uncle Ben's death? I mean, it was the burglar who actually killed Ben, so Peter's not to blame, right?

Legally Peter had no responsibility, morally he did, but he didn't have to kill the burglar to stop him.

[ShaokhaN]

For something to be "objective" a strong external validation is needed. Universal ethics are regulated by laws in almost all the countries of the world, from murder to rape to civil rights anything is governed by legislations. I consider laws the laws that are in place in the civilized western countries, because is where I grew up and learned the value we, more or less, all share (laws in places like India or many Islamic countries are a world apart, they tell you, for example, that you have to publicly stone your daughter to death if you discover she's been raped, if we go by these rules anything is possibile).

Well, in the case of the example you've made the person who kills an innocent to save ten will still be considered responsible of that killing, judged and convicted. If the person choice to avoid killing the one and let everyone die for the law he won't be considered responsible at all, both the responsibility and the guilt will be on the person that created the situation, that will be judged and convicted for multiple murders. This is the view of all the legislation of countries we call civilized and almost two billions of people live following and agreeing to this principle. You are still entitled to a different opinion, but it's just your opinion, there is nothing objective in it.

Yes, the person who kills an innocent to save ten will be responsible of that killing. He will also be responsible for saving the ten people. If he chooses to avoid killing the one and let the eleven die, he will be responsible for the deaths of the ten others, because choosing not to act resulted in the ten people not getting saved. That is NOT an opinion, that is a fact. Whether or not he will be held responsible by our justice system is utterly irrelevant (you're probably right that he wouldn't be legally responsible, but the key word is "legally"). It is still a fact that by choosing not to kill one, eleven died, and that by choosing to kill one, ten would have been saved. He may not be responsible for killing them, but it is HIS CHOICE which determined whether or not the ten would be saved by him. Again, that is a fact.

I can't think of lives that way without feeling shallow and in bad taste. 1000 lives, 10 lives, 990 lives…lives are not candies or wooden sticks, you try to reduce to a statistical problem something that in its nature is not statistics, you can't mix mathematics and ethics anymore that I can mathematically add Apple to Oranges because I like the result.

The fact that you "can't think of lives that way without feeling shallow and in bad taste" concerns only you and is not an argument. Neither is your completely unrelated and inapplicable "apple to oranges" image. I'll reiterate: "It does make a difference, because in the second scenario you weight ten lives against 1000 other lives, while in the first scenario you weight ten lives against the same ten lives plus 990 lives. This means that in the first scenario, the ten lives will end anyway. That's the baseline. This makes your choice "saving zero life" vs "saving 990 lives"." If you have a counter-argument, go ahead.

About that, I can only tell to study a bit what categorization really is. You keep using words and principles assigning them arbitrary meanings that are not the ones we universally share. When one does that, any communication is impossibile. If you use "all" as the common factor than it's obvious that everything is part of the category "all" but categories exists exactly for the opposite reasons and works the opposite ways.

Please don't attempt to lecture me on words I used perfectly accurately in my previous post. Merriam-Webster notably defines "category" as "a group of people or things that are similar in some way". Humans are a category of the Marvel universe's "living beings" population, exactly like I said.

Please stop attempting to change the subject, however - it won't make the arguments I presented you with, and my debunking of your points, go away. Like I said, "the population of any Earth is part of the population of that Earth's universe. The fact that only a small part of the universe's population is human is utterly irrelevant - the point is that if the universe is destroyed, the lives of the inhabitants of that universe's Earth will be destroyed as well. You can, however, destroy the Earth and its population without destroying the rest of the universe." I'm not sure what you don't understand about this, but don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.