Avengers #37 *Spoilers*

[vitruvian]

Utilitarian actions can be moral actions.

It all depends on the circumstances.

However, in this case, the utilitarian action here isn't moral, it's just necessary.

As i said earlier, necessity doesn't equate to morality. They can differ sometimes and this is one of those instances.

No. If your morality is based on utilitarian principles, then the choice that's best for the greater good (or even, as in this case, the least bad one) IS by definition morally right, because that's how 'moral' and 'right' are defined.

[TakoM]

I suppose Doom has one advantage over Reed in that I don't think Doom is even bothering to find a solution to the incursions. I'm assuming he's fine with Thanos dealing with that end of things, which allows Doom to focus entirely on finding the source. And Sunspots group seems to be doing the same thing.

I think Reed and company are still trying to come up with a way to deal with incursions, despite the fact that Thanos is handlng them, which means he's still addressing just the symptoms rather than the discease. Or at least he's splitting his time. And because of that, he's probably not going to be able to get ahead of this.

I think Sunspots is thinking to simple and plain he wants to destroy the Great Destroyer but he knows wining a direct fight will be extremely difficult and even if they win it means nothing the process will continue to run on his own.

Doom on the other hand will wait until he sees an opening and has gathered enough information about his identity. I think he will(or better said he wants to) send Molecule Man into the past to stop that guy.

The best thing Sunspot can come up is when someone of his team return alive to say who or what he saw.

[TresDias]

That's a fair position to take. I've seen tons of people on these threads completely scoffing at deontological ethics. This is why I brought up incommensurability in the past.

There's nothing wrong with following a deontological code. Not all of them are even wholly separate from considering consequences, for that matter.

What deserves to be scoffed at -- nay, ridiculed, and at every possible turn -- are notions of placing more value on the code than on what the code is supposed to protect, or following a code motivated by fear of personal punishment or loss of reward. The word "moral" can't even apply to such destructive and selfish paradigms.

[KOSLOX]

There's nothing wrong with following a deontological code. Not all of them are even wholly separate from considering consequences, for that matter.

What deserves to be scoffed at -- nay, ridiculed, and at every possible turn -- are notions of placing more value on the code than on what the code is supposed to protect, or following a code motivated by fear of personal punishment or loss of reward. The word "moral" can't even apply to such destructive and selfish paradigms.

I've seen nothing to suggest the "don't kill" maxim on display by the heroes is in anyway motivated by "fear of personal punishment or loss of reward". If anything when the Illuminati faltered it was the opposite.

[TresDias]

I'm referring to some of the arguments that have been put forth in these discussions with that one.

Though most of the Illuminati members did seemingly fall into the "code for the code's sake" thinking.

[People Of The Earth]

No. If your morality is based on utilitarian principles, then the choice that's best for the greater good (or even, as in this case, the least bad one) IS by definition morally right, because that's how 'moral' and 'right' are defined.

This is where I disagree.

The act in itself is the same, only the context in which it is executed may or may not change.
Genocide is still genocide.
Murder is still murder.
A lie is still a lie.
Those acts are universally acknowledged as wrong.
That the context in which they are being executed makes it so that they will benefit, here, a majority of people - hence, the "greater good"- doesn't change that those acts still are objectively wrong per se.

The notions advocated by the principles you are referring to would justify anything in the name of the greater good.
Scapegoating someone to appease the population over suspicions of a crime for example, to avoid social/racial conflicts that would lead to people being injured and lot of material destruction, instead of seeking for the truth no matter the consequences. #TheGreaterGood
Turning a blind-eye on the abuses made by another country because it supplies our own country with vital resources/ humanitarian help for our population.#TheGreaterGood
And, in the case of the Illuminati, destroying a world - and the entirety of its population at the same time - so that two universes and another world live.#TheGreaterGood

And so on and so forth.

None of those acts are objectively morally right. The contexte allow us to understand the why, to understand the purpose behind them, but it doesn't change what they objectively are: morally wrong.

[KOSLOX]

I'm referring to some of the arguments that have been put forth in these discussions with that one.

Though most of the Illuminati members did seemingly fall into the "code for the code's sake" thinking.

I'd say Stark and Beast probably most makes your case. T'challa wrestled with the dilemma so clearly he was having problems reconciling his more utilitarian/pragmatic side with his more deontological side.

Like I said earlier I'd love to do a thread with some on the people interested in discussing the moral principles in a more academic sense once the series is wrapped and we can see how the story has played out.

[Username taken]

No. If your morality is based on utilitarian principles, then the choice that's best for the greater good (or even, as in this case, the least bad one) IS by definition morally right, because that's how 'moral' and 'right' are defined.

This is where I completely disagree.

Who's defining morality here and who does it apply it too? The two universes? Does this exclude the innocents being killed here? Absolutely not. Thats why it's not a moral action.

Genocide is an act is morally wrong. It can't be spun into being moral just because it's necessary. Unless we're saying the people on the planet being blown up don't deserve to live when in fact the Illuminati could just as well as blown up their home planet.

[Username taken]

This is where I disagree.

The act in itself is the same, only the context in which it is executed may or may not change.
Genocide is still genocide.
Murder is still murder.
A lie is still a lie.
Those acts are universally acknowledged as wrong.
That the context in which they are being executed makes it so that they will benefit, here, a majority of people - hence, the "greater good"- doesn't change that those acts still are objectively wrong per se.

The notions advocated by the principles you are referring to would justify anything in the name of the greater good.
Scapegoating someone to appease the population over suspicions of a crime for example, to avoid social/racial conflicts that would lead to people being injured and lot of material destruction, instead of seeking for the truth no matter the consequences. #TheGreaterGood
Turning a blind-eye on the abuses made by another country because it supplies our own country with vital resources/ humanitarian help for our population.#TheGreaterGood
And, in the case of the Illuminati, destroying a world - and the entirety of its population at the same time - so that two universes and another world live.#TheGreaterGood

And so on and so forth.

None of those acts are objectively morally right. The contexte allow us to understand the why, to understand the purpose behind them, but it doesn't change what they objectively are: morally wrong.

Quoted in agreement.

We mustn't lose sight of the context in which this is all happening.

[TresDias]

This is where I disagree.

The act in itself is the same, only the context in which it is executed may or may not change.
Genocide is still genocide.
Murder is still murder.
A lie is still a lie.
Those acts are universally acknowledged as wrong.
That the context in which they are being executed makes it so that they will benefit, here, a majority of people - hence, the "greater good"- doesn't change that those acts still are objectively wrong per se.

The notions advocated by the principles you are referring to would justify anything in the name of the greater good.
Scapegoating someone to appease the population over suspicions of a crime for example, to avoid social/racial conflicts that would lead to people being injured and lot of material destruction, instead of seeking for the truth no matter the consequences. #TheGreaterGood
Turning a blind-eye on the abuses made by another country because it supplies our own country with vital resources/ humanitarian help for our population.#TheGreaterGood
And, in the case of the Illuminati, destroying a world - and the entirety of its population at the same time - so that two universes and another world live.#TheGreaterGood

And so on and so forth.

None of those acts are objectively morally right. The contexte allow us to understand the why, to understand the purpose behind them, but it doesn't change what they objectively are: morally wrong.

You are, of course, correct, but vitruvian's point is that defining something as moral based on practicality or consideration for the greater good means you don't assign the category of "moral" or "immoral" until after incorporating the context of the specific situation. So, consequence and perhaps intent become more the focus than the action taken.

Even value assumptions like "murder is wrong" or "genocide is wrong" are assuming that the one committing these acts is an aggressor, and that it was unnecessary. That's how we end up with a dilemma about whether you can act in self-defense while firing the first shot -- obviously you can, when a threat to yourself is imminent or been made to appear so.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with utilizing either set of ethics. One can do something immoral by one set's standards and do the absolute best thing according to the other. It may well be that the truly best decisions lie somewhere in the overlap -- e.g. "do no harm, unless it be necesssry for the protection of oneself or others."

Really, that's the sort of thinking superheroes tend to go by anyway.

I'd say Stark and Beast probably most makes your case. T'challa wrestled with the dilemma so clearly he was having problems reconciling his more utilitarian/pragmatic side with his more deontological side.

Like I said earlier I'd love to do a thread with some on the people interested in discussing the moral principles in a more academic sense once the series is wrapped and we can see how the story has played out.

We should totally do that.

[Mikekerr3]

Well Sabertooth has been inverted and the Scarlet Witch could least say she was mentally insane when she did what she did

After this many times I think she might find people growing tired of that excuse

[Mikekerr3]

Why did they have nothing but the bomb after supposedly researching other methods for months?

Perhaps there was nothing else for them to find?

[Mikekerr3]

That's a fair position to take. I've seen tons of people on these threads completely scoffing at deontological ethics. This is why I brought up incommensurability in the past.

The problem with all forms of deontological eithics is that we all don't agree on what external rulebook to follow. Some folks think via deontologica ethics that mass-murder, slavery , rape and torture are acceptable.

[Mikekerr3]

This is where I disagree.

The act in itself is the same, only the context in which it is executed may or may not change.
Genocide is still genocide.
Murder is still murder.
A lie is still a lie.
Those acts are universally acknowledged as wrong.
That the context in which they are being executed makes it so that they will benefit, here, a majority of people - hence, the "greater good"- doesn't change that those acts still are objectively wrong per se.

The notions advocated by the principles you are referring to would justify anything in the name of the greater good.
Scapegoating someone to appease the population over suspicions of a crime for example, to avoid social/racial conflicts that would lead to people being injured and lot of material destruction, instead of seeking for the truth no matter the consequences. #TheGreaterGood
Turning a blind-eye on the abuses made by another country because it supplies our own country with vital resources/ humanitarian help for our population.#TheGreaterGood
And, in the case of the Illuminati, destroying a world - and the entirety of its population at the same time - so that two universes and another world live.#TheGreaterGood

And so on and so forth.

None of those acts are objectively morally right. The contexte allow us to understand the why, to understand the purpose behind them, but it doesn't change what they objectively are: morally wrong.

Sometimes murder or killing is a great thing
Sometimes a lie is the most moral choice

Those things are not unoversialy acnoledged as wrong, not even close

Google Operation Mincemeat or operation bodyguard and you will find out that deceit and maminpulation can be both moral and ethical

Juan Pujol Garcia and Dusko Popov, were both massively profligate and masterfull liars, and heroically saved thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands As did the liar by the name of Oskar Schindler whom you might be more familiar with

Don't confusing what you don't like a moral absolute

[vitruvian]

This is where I disagree.

The act in itself is the same, only the context in which it is executed may or may not change.
Genocide is still genocide.
Murder is still murder.
A lie is still a lie.
Those acts are universally acknowledged as wrong.
That the context in which they are being executed makes it so that they will benefit, here, a majority of people - hence, the "greater good"- doesn't change that those acts still are objectively wrong per se.

The notions advocated by the principles you are referring to would justify anything in the name of the greater good.
Scapegoating someone to appease the population over suspicions of a crime for example, to avoid social/racial conflicts that would lead to people being injured and lot of material destruction, instead of seeking for the truth no matter the consequences. #TheGreaterGood
Turning a blind-eye on the abuses made by another country because it supplies our own country with vital resources/ humanitarian help for our population.#TheGreaterGood
And, in the case of the Illuminati, destroying a world - and the entirety of its population at the same time - so that two universes and another world live.#TheGreaterGood

And so on and so forth.

None of those acts are objectively morally right. The contexte allow us to understand the why, to understand the purpose behind them, but it doesn't change what they objectively are: morally wrong.

Look up utilitarianism and get back to us, because you seem to be failing to grasp how it defines morality.

If one's moral philosophy is based on utilitarian principles, then morality is completely and utterly defined by utility. Period. Therefore, the act or choice with the greatest utility is morally right by definition. There are no other rules, just rules of thumb based on that central principle. If you believe that certain things are just plain wrong regardless of the outcomes, then you are not following a utilitarian moral philosophy, but a deontological one.

Now, it's perfectly possible to argue against utilitarianism for any number of reasons, but in order to do so you should really first understand what it says.