New Avengers #23 (spoilers)

[Tony Stark]

Wow, that's dark. I thought he was hitting his head in a "Oh god, here it comes" way. I did not see the "vmmmmm".

Yeah. It is dark and also it looks like a few of the shot glasses are empty.

[Global Honored]

I don't think use the psyche of a fictional character is a good argument against a real life psycological condition.

Agreed. Unless such a condition is addressed in the comic itself in the future then I don't think it is fair to go down that road. These are fictional characters after all. Real Earths are not being killed off. At least I hope not. We could be next!!!

[davew128]

They could turn themselves the Galactic Council or whatever they call it and be executed for not having warned the rest of the universe.

I think you know what the Galactic Council would say on how to deal with the problem. They'll all get t-shirts and you know what those t-shirts will say? "The Builders Were Right!"

[ShaokhaN]

Ok, the false analogies and misrepresentations of the incursion problem are starting to get annoying, so I thought I'd write a detailed post presenting the moral dilemma faced by the characters, just so that I'll have a link to provide each time someone misrepresents the issue.

Let's say you are faced with an incursion that is about to complete. Your Earth is called Earth A, and the other Earth is called Earth B. You are moments away from the end of the incursion, and you have no other options than 1) doing nothing, and 2) blowing up the other Earth (Earth B). Here are the results of the two options:

Option 1: Two universes die, including Earth A's population and Earth B's population.
Option 2: Two universes live, except for Earth B's population which dies.

Let's rephrase that:

Option 1: Earth B's population + Earth A's population + the rest of the population of Earth B's universe + the rest of the population of Earth A's universe all end up dying.
Option 2: Earth B's population ends up dying. Everyone else survives.

At this point, you should have noticed something which many people seem to miss: in both cases, Earth B's population ends up dying. In the 2nd scenario, if Earth B is blown up a few seconds/minutes before the end of the incursion, Earth B's population would have died anyway a few seconds/minutes later. This is why the problem at hand is different from the "trolley problem" which has been brought up by some posters - in the trolley problem, we have two mutually exclusive groups, one smaller than the other. The dilemma, in the trolley case, is whether it is better to act to sacrifice a different smaller group instead of the initial, larger group.

This is not the same as in the incursion problem! In the incursion problem, we also have two choices, but in both choices, the "smaller group", namely Earth 2's population, dies. Therefore, the only matter left to be resolved is whether or not the rest of the populations of the two universes die as well.

In other words, the baseline is that Earth 2's population dies. This is unavoidable. If the two options are "blow up Earth 2" or "doing nothing", Earth 2's population is doomed whatever you end up choosing. Since saving Earth 2's population is completely out of your control, let's come back to what your actual choices are, namely what you can control:

Option 1: Earth A's population + the rest of the population of Earth B's universe + the rest of the population of Earth A's universe also end up dying.
Option 2: Nobody else also ends up dying.

--

These are the facts. At this point, I honestly cannot understand how you could rationalize that it would be better to choose option 1 (doing nothing) than option 2 (doing something). Arguing that the Illuminati should have called other people for help, should have tried evacuating, etc., is a different matter entirely. But when it comes to the incursion problem itself, if you're confronted with only these two options moments before the conclusion of an incursion, as the characters were at the end of the 21st issue, the correct decision is undoubtedly the second option, namely blowing up the other Earth.

I'd like to finish by addressing an argument that has been brought up: the idea that we would not have the "right" to choose, and that we should "refuse to choose". This misses the point entirely: by "refusing to choose", you are in reality choosing not to act. You are, in fact, making a choice, the choice not to act (option 1). You are therefore choosing the net consequences I mentioned for 1 earlier (Earth A's population + the rest of the population of Earth B's universe + the rest of the population of Earth A's universe end up dying in addition to Earth 2's population) rather than the net consequence I mentioned for 2 earlier (nobody else ends up dying in addition to Earth 2's population). Arguing you "refuse to choose" is therefore nonsensical - you are in reality making a choice, and making the bad one at that.

[The Cheat]

No, I hadn't read the solicitations and I don't intend to. Why not use spoiler tags? I distinctively remember other people asking for the same thing in a past thread. If I'm alone in this, nvm.

No, you're not alone. I avoid solicits too and would expect other users to have the courtesy to use spoiler tags. My understanding is that the *spoilers* in the thread title relates to spoilers from this issue, no more.

[Global Honored]

That is good but for arguments sake it isn't quite as easy.

You could also sacrifice your own Earth to save the rest of the two current universes in peril and therefore prevent future incursions to your universe, basically saving the rest of your universe except for Earth...for now. All things eventually die of course. Cosmic scale existentialism.

But if you are Earth A and you decide to destroy Earth B then just killing one other Earth doesn't stop the problem, it isn't that easy...the incursions don't stop after killing one Earth. You potentially have to continue to kill all the rest of the Earths until yours is the last survivor if you want to save your Earth along with the rest of your universe.

[Mark]

I don't think they are doing continuity that much anymore.

I disagree. I really think a full reboot would probably kill Marvel altogether. A lot Marvel fans are Fans for the solo purpose of their continuity. It's one of the pillars that the company stands on.

It would be a terrible idea, one of which they already tried and failed miserably at or do we so quickly forget Heroes Reborn?

[ShaokhaN]

That is good but for arguments sake it isn't quite as easy.

You could also sacrifice your own Earth to save the rest of the two current universes in peril and therefore prevent future incursions, basically saving the rest of your universe except for Earth.

B/C the incursions don't stop after killing one Earth. You potential have to continue to kill all the rest of the Earths until yours is the last survivor.

Yes, but that's a different discussion. You can replace Earth 2 by Earth 1 in my post if you'd like. The point is that it is justified to destroy one Earth to save two universes if the only alternative is the destruction of the two universes.

[Global Honored]

Yes, but that's a different discussion. You can replace Earth 2 by Earth 1 in my post if you'd like. The point is that it is justified to destroy one Earth to save two universes if the only alternative is the destruction of the two universes.

Correct. If you are willing to sacrifice your own Earth and the inhabitants of it, then that would potentially save your universe from future incursion peril. At least as the rules are currently understood. The source of much of our information (Black Swan) may not be as reliable as once thought.

But you also must consider it doesn't end there. You temporarily save two universes (or at least one of them) b/c the next incursion is coming and more Earth killing has to be done.

I don't think this is as simple or cut and dry as some are making it out to be. I am not saying Namor and the Cabal's actions aren't at least understandable, especially considering it may be a temporary solution until someone finds a better way...but I don't think logically it's as easy as that. If this weren't comic books, which we know they will eventually find a way to save the day, then I don't find the choice to accept and face your death by cosmic destruction as that unreasonable.

But it is comics and these characters are going to live on so right now I see that side of the argument (destroying worlds to buy time) even if that may not necessarily be some of the Cabal's motivation. I have to assume their will be a solution/resolution found that doesn't involve killing a bunch of other worlds. And then we will have another moral dilemma to debate.

[Mark]

I disagree. Choosing to act is choosing to murder. Choosing not to act is simply dying with the rest. The complete responsibility will rest on the sole being who caused the incursions. If you don't act and they die and you do act and they die the difference is that you haven't killed them, or anyone else. You imply that non-action qualifies as responsibility and I reject that. Non-action just means you've decided not to be complicit in murder.

Ok, the false analogies and misrepresentations of the incursion problem are starting to get annoying, so I thought I'd write a detailed post presenting the moral dilemma faced by the characters, just so that I'll have a link to provide each time someone misrepresents the issue.

Let's say you are faced with an incursion that is about to complete. Your Earth is called Earth A, and the other Earth is called Earth B. You are moments away from the end of the incursion, and you have no other options than 1) doing nothing, and 2) blowing up the other Earth (Earth B). Here are the results of the two options:

Option 1: Two universes die, including Earth A's population and Earth B's population.
Option 2: Two universes live, except for Earth B's population which dies.

Let's rephrase that:

Option 1: Earth B's population + Earth A's population + the rest of the population of Earth B's universe + the rest of the population of Earth A's universe all end up dying.
Option 2: Earth B's population ends up dying. Everyone else survives.

At this point, you should have noticed something which many people seem to miss: in both cases, Earth B's population ends up dying. In the 2nd scenario, if Earth B is blown up a few seconds/minutes before the end of the incursion, Earth B's population would have died anyway a few seconds/minutes later. This is why the problem at hand is different from the "trolley problem" which has been brought up by some posters - in the trolley problem, we have two mutually exclusive groups, one smaller than the other. The dilemma, in the trolley case, is whether it is better to act to sacrifice a different smaller group instead of the initial, larger group.

This is not the same as in the incursion problem! In the incursion problem, we also have two choices, but in both choices, the "smaller group", namely Earth 2's population, dies. Therefore, the only matter left to be resolved is whether or not the rest of the populations of the two universes die as well.

In other words, the baseline is that Earth 2's population dies. This is unavoidable. If the two options are "blow up Earth 2" or "doing nothing", Earth 2's population is doomed whatever you end up choosing. Since saving Earth 2's population is completely out of your control, let's come back to what your actual choices are, namely what you can control:

Option 1: Earth A's population + the rest of the population of Earth B's universe + the rest of the population of Earth A's universe also end up dying.
Option 2: Nobody else also ends up dying.

At this point, I honestly cannot understand how you could rationalize that it would be better to choose option 1 (doing nothing) than option 2 (doing something). Arguing that the Illuminati should have called other people for help, should have tried evacuating, etc., is a different matter entirely. But when it comes to the incursion problem itself, if you're confronted with only these two options moments before the conclusion of an incursion, as the characters were at the end of the 21st issue, the correct decision is undoubtedly the second option, namely blowing up the other Earth.

I'd like to finish by addressing an argument that has been brought up: the idea that we would not have the "right" to choose, and that we should "refuse to choose". This misses the point entirely: by "refusing to choose", you are in reality choosing not to act. You are, in fact, making a choice, the choice not to act (option 1). You are therefore choosing the net consequences I mentioned for 1 earlier (Earth A's population + the rest of the population of Earth B's universe + the rest of the population of Earth A's universe end up dying in addition to Earth 2's population) rather than the net consequence I mentioned for 2 earlier (nobody else ends up dying in addition to Earth 2's population). Arguing you "refuse to choose" is therefore nonsensical - you are in reality making a choice, and making the bad one at that.

[ShaokhaN]

I disagree. Choosing to act is choosing to murder. Choosing not to act is simply dying with the rest. The complete responsibility will rest on the sole being who caused the incursions. If you don't act and they die and you do act and they die the difference is that you haven't killed them, or anyone else. You imply that non-action qualifies as responsibility and I reject that. Non-action just means you've decided not to be complicit in murder.

You can disagree with what the correct choice is, but you can't disagree with the facts I presented about the consequences of each choice. When it comes to what you have control over (i.e. not the death of Earth 2's population), you can choose to have trillions upon trillions of other deaths instead of no other deaths if you want to. It'll still be a choice, since you could have acted differently if you wanted to.

[AcesX1X]

I disagree. Choosing to act is choosing to murder. Choosing not to act is simply dying with the rest. The complete responsibility will rest on the sole being who caused the incursions. If you don't act and they die and you do act and they die the difference is that you haven't killed them, or anyone else. You imply that non-action qualifies as responsibility and I reject that. Non-action just means you've decided not to be complicit in murder.

well mark they did more than that. they chose to sit back and let it happen but withheld vital information from the rest. that is murder to me. at least give people the chance to fight against this. these people chose to take that choice away from everyone.

[Mark]

You can disagree with what the correct choice is, but you can't disagree with the facts I presented about the consequences of each choice. When it comes to what you have control over (i.e. not the death of Earth 2's population), you can choose to have trillions upon trillions of other deaths instead of no other deaths if you want to. It'll still be a choice, since you could have acted differently if you wanted to.

The facts you've given -like the facts in the story- are a dead end designed to drag a character into slime. A cul-de-sac with no real out and since this is a marvel comic no real consequences.

If I act once then I'll have to act again and again and again because I'll have given the entity who demands that I make the choice that power over me, so it'll just keep going and going until the dead are without number, just to keep what I love and by then I won't care about what I love because I won't be me anymore. With each death I loose a bit of myself.

[Mark]

well mark they did more than that. they chose to sit back and let it happen but withheld vital information from the rest. that is murder to me. at least give people the chance to fight against this. these people chose to take that choice away from everyone.

I agree, in the case of the Illuminati Hickman has dragged them thoroughly into the mud with only a slim chance of pulling them out again, what they did this issue is about as pathetic as you can get. Sadly I doubt anyone will care in a year or two. Then again I doubt anyone at marvel really cares either or has discussed this with as much detail and passion as we have.

[ShaokhaN]

The facts you've given -like the facts in the story- are a dead end designed to drag a character into slime. A cul-de-sac with no real out and since this is a marvel comic no real consequences.

If I act once then I'll have to act again and again and again because I'll have given the entity who demands that I make the choice that power over me, so it'll just keep going and going until the dead are without number, just to keep what I love and by then I won't care about what I love because I won't be me anymore. With each death I loose a bit of myself.

Then blame Hickman, but don't deny the facts of the story as it's been told ,-)