Avengers #29 (Spoilers)

[gregyo]

Cap's personality is so flawed that he won't murder billions of people. Makes sense.

[MyriVerse]

The situation escalated due to Cap hitting Tony and bringing in other Avengers.

Not really. He knew Tony deemed himself above any law, and going alone would be near suicide. If Tony wasn't going to immediately acquiesce, he needed to be physically subdued.

[ElGuitaristMagnifico]

Cap's personality is so flawed that he won't murder billions of people. Makes sense.

When he is willing to jeopardize entire universes with trillions upon trillions of lives just so he doesn't have to feel bad - yes, flawed.

[XPac]

Talking about the democratic/voting process within the Illuminati.
Having heroes who have proven to give their lives for the greater good and protection of the earth, as well as absurdly more intelligent than most other "running the show" for earth is another debate.



This is flat out wrong. The lives on a single earth are not greater than the lives in two universes.
If you are talking based on speculation as to the end result of not fixing the real problem: a)they ARE looking for a real solution b)your speculation is without foundation atm.
This is not to mention that this is not their preferred method. They are looking for a better solution. What they have now is a single method for their contingency plan in case they run out of time before another incursion (which, if they did not have, two universes including their own would have ended.) NA #6 alone proves your accusation here wrong (I think it was #6 when they blew up the barren other earth).


You DON'T think that the existence and lives of two universes is of more importance than a few people's moral codes?! I'm speechless. Please, if you can, explain.


Cap is out of his league. You later state that Hank McCoy is outclassed, so how can Cap possibly come up with a better solution than any of the Illuminati? I still hold that only Cap coming up with the obvious Gauntlet idea is the result of poor writing, making the other members dumber than they actually are.


yes, debatable. I'd argue the less cooks in the kitchen, the better - so just assemble a small group of the best cooks (scientific minds, in this case).



All evidence as presented on the pages of these comics points to you being wrong. So please, explain if you can.

The fact that Cap thought of the gems when they others didn't (despite the gems literally being in the palms of their hands) makes the notion of this being out of Caps leagues sort of questionable IMO. If they can't think of using the gems, maybe they're the ones out of their league here.

I think the inherent problem with defending the Illuminati from a purely moral perspective is the fact that such defense entirely lies in the notion that they have no other option. Th problem being that A) we know other options exist in the MU, and B) we know from the Infinity Gem fiasco that they are clearly missing even incredible obvious ones.

Hell, Wanda right on Uncanny Avengers is wisking away entire populations to other planets magically made habitable. Tell me that wouldn't come in handy right now about. I get that the writer wants the characters to ignore such options in order to tell the story he wants to tell... but nonetheless the fact that he's having the characters ignore other sollutions IMO at least hurts the notion of the doing the right thing here.

[SXVA]

I wouldn't say what the Illuminati did was just for fun... but I would argue the reasons they mind wiped Steve in the first place still potentially apply now. Unless Steve has changed his mind on the matter (which he hasn't) or the Illluminati have (which again they haven't), there's every reason for the Illuminati to believe that Steve will oppose them, and every reason for Steve to believe they would mind wipe him again to prevent him from opposing them.

But as far as picking sides... I look at it this way. I find fault in both Cap and the Illuminati's perspectives. The difference is I can at least respect Steves stance on principal alone even if I don't entirely agree with it.

Steve is being the moral compass that I (and the Illuminati for that matter) expect him to be. For better or for worse, it's exactly what Steve should be doing in this situation. In contrast, the Illuminati are being a bunch of smart guys acting stupid (which sadly isn't all that uncommon for the Illuminati). The guys championing reason and intellect are the guys who weren't smart enough to think of using the Infinity Gems without Cap there to tell them to. Gems aside there are probably a dozen other plot devices out there which could in the least prevent incursions if not solve the problem... and I understand from a story perspective the writer deciding to ignore them. But that doesn't mean as a reader I can't view their way of handling things incredibly limited and short sighted. Everything the Great Society has shown capable of doing, the Illuminati in theory can do and THEN some.

If I HONESTLY believed the Illuminati were doing the smart thing, I'd at least respect their stance as much as Steves. Maybe more. But right now they're not doing the smarter thing, or the more moral thing. They simply don't look good on either front... and perhaps that's by design. I'm not entirely sure Hickman (who has already gone on record saying Cap is right for the most part) is trying to necessarily paint them in the most positive light. They're not villains or evil... but they're certainly not looking good.

Well, just because Hickman says Cap is right doesn't make it so for me. Maybe that's his intent or what he's trying to show or say, however... I have my own views and opinions.

Steve believing they might mind wipe him again might have some logic to it if he was confronting the Illuminati or even Strange, but he's confronting Tony... the chances of Tony somehow mind wiping Steve, being unaware that Steve even knows and is going to confront him... i'd take a guess and say that it's pretty low.

I'm not disagreeing that Steve and the Illuminati should discuss in depth what happened, and in that conversation i'm not even disagreeing that there probably should be a witness or mediator of some sort... i'm disagreeing with the method and how Steve went about doing so and the timing of it, in addition... the outing of the Illuminati.

Would Captain America's moral compass and and all of that still be respected if both universes were destroyed as a result? He was outvoted, not one other person agreed... and he still wasn't going to allow it to go forth as a course of action. The arrogance and superiority complex of that is astounding to me. Even after the mind wipe... the others looked for alternate ways, of course they would. The Reeds, the Starks, the McCoys, The Black Panthers aren't in the world destroying business... i highly doubt they're greatly anticipating destroying a world. It's an extreme decision in an extreme time that might have to be a reality, in which Cap wasn't even allowing for consideration. I didn't see it the other way around where they weren't considering something else, if there was something else to consider. These are some of the greatest minds out there. It was the anticipation that Steve wasn't even going to allow that option an allowance is where i interpreted the need for a mind wipe, not that they didn't desire other alternatives/solutions.

[ElGuitaristMagnifico]

The fact that Cap thought of the gems when they others didn't (despite the gems literally being in the palms of their hands) makes the notion of this being out of Caps leagues sort of questionable IMO. If they can't think of using the gems, maybe they're the ones out of their league here.

I think the inherent problem with defending the Illuminati from a purely moral perspective is the fact that such defense entirely lies in the notion that they have no other option. Th problem being that A) we know other options exist in the MU, and B) we know from the Infinity Gem fiasco that they are clearly missing even incredible obvious ones.

Hell, Wanda right on Uncanny Avengers is wisking away entire populations to other planets magically made habitable. Tell me that wouldn't come in handy right now about. I get that the writer wants the characters to ignore such options in order to tell the story he wants to tell... but nonetheless the fact that he's having the characters ignore other sollutions IMO at least hurts the notion of the doing the right thing here.

In the story that we are being presented with, Cap somehow out-thinks the MU's top minds once, as well as there is no other option that will work.
The readers know of other methods that may work, but the story we are being given is that no, there is no other options at their disposal that would work.

[XPac]

When he is willing to jeopardize entire universes with trillions upon trillions of lives just so he doesn't have to feel bad - yes, flawed.

Course, you can equally argue the Illuminati are being just as flawed by opting to destroy the OTHER planet rather than their own, even though destroying earth protects the entire 616 from future incursions.

I'll wager the rest of the universe would argue the Illuminati's perspective is just as flawed as Caps. There's a reason the other universes Galactus and Builders destroyed that universes earth. Because it's existance threatens trillions upon trillions of other lives.

Caps perspective is the absolute moral one. Risk everything so that no one dies. The Builders and Galactus have the most practical approach... destory the earth to end the problem for that universe and ensure everyone is safe. The Illuminati sort of exist in the middle... thus they to a degree can be be attacked both from an ethical and from a practical perspective. They're not entirely doing the most practical or the most ethical approach. Though all things considered, it is very understandable.

[jphamlore]

In the story that we are being presented with, Cap somehow out-thinks the MU's top minds once, as well as there is no other option that will work.
The readers know of other methods that may work, but the story we are being given is that no, there is no other options at their disposal that would work.

No, the story has explicitly had other characters, the alternate universe Builders, shouting at the Illuminati, "Then what are you waiting for" as far as blowing up Earth, Black Swan mentioning in New Avengers that there is an option to evacuate Earth and then blow it up, and the end of Infinity where it was noted that Gardeners are terraforming worlds to relocate those who had been displaced during the Builders invasion. Not to mention Black Swan has been telling them from day one there is no hope in their approach, and their having seen for themselves in an alternate universe where Black Swan killed its Stark that there is no hope to their approach.

They know they're in the wrong but they're simply refusing to stop their wrong path in their obstinance BECAUSE they think they're the smartest in the room and no one else matters.

Furthermore they know from watching an alternate universe that if they ever come up against a monstrous force such as the Black Priests, they and 616 Earth are simply dead. They already saw their analogs who were much more united get butchered rather easily by the Black Priests. The Great Society might be able to handle Black Priests or an Ivory King, but they can't.

[XPac]

In the story that we are being presented with, Cap somehow out-thinks the MU's top minds once, as well as there is no other option that will work.
The readers know of other methods that may work, but the story we are being given is that no, there is no other options at their disposal that would work.

Except the story exists in a greater marvel universe, where other options in fact due exist.

The fact that the Great Society are thinking of alternates while the Illuminati haven't to any real degree so far only highlight that short coming.

Steve thought of a sollution and the Great Society have so far too. It does look as though the people representing "life" over "death" (those are the labels the stories are using, not mine) seem better at this sort of thing.

[ElGuitaristMagnifico]

Course, you can equally argue the Illuminati are being just as flawed by opting to destroy the OTHER planet rather than their own, even though destroying earth protects the entire 616 from future incursions.

I'll wager the rest of the universe would argue the Illuminati's perspective is just as flawed as Caps. There's a reason the other universes Galactus and Builders destroyed that universes earth. Because it's existance threatens trillions upon trillions of other lives.

Caps perspective is the absolute moral one. Risk everything so that no one dies. The Builders and Galactus have the most practical approach... destory the earth to end the problem for that universe and ensure everyone is safe. The Illuminati sort of exist in the middle... thus they to a degree can be be attacked both from an ethical and from a practical perspective. They're doing entirely doing the most practical or the most ethical approach. Though all things considered, it is very understandable.

My perspective and understanding:

Under Kantian morality, looking specifically at the Categorical Imperative for the sake of time, Cap's morality is immoral. The maxim of "risk everything so that no one dies," cannot be rationally willed as universal law. This line of morality that Kant uses I believe is in line with reductio ad absurdum - taking an argument to it's most extreme level in order to prove how it does not "make sense" (for lack of a better term). No, if we apply this maxim as universal law, you can imagine that life as we know it would not function anywhere close to ideally - risking everything in a hope that nothing bad happens. I don't think I have to go into detail on why risking everything for the hope/attempt that nothing bad happens is not only impractical, but is also morally problematic.

If have, however, as a society, shied away from Kantian morality because it focuses more on the Good Will and intentions as opposed to outcomes, and this form of morality is impractical in today's society (not my opinion, it's just what we've geared towards over centuries).

So, let's look at the other end of the spectrum into Utilitarian morality as presented by Mill.
Greatest Happiness Principle: do that which brings the greatest aggregate happiness, happiness being defined as pleasure in the absence of pain.
When it comes to the no win scenario of the Illuminati being faced with either blowing up an earth or having universes ended (which they have already come across), utilitarian morality dictates they should end 7 billions lives in order to save the innumerable lives present in two universes.

The best question is: why are they ready to destroy other earths and not their own. This is a better question. I'd answer it with their duty, which is towards their earth (again, Kantian morality). But what I want to argue instead is the precautions attempted by Tony for the dyson sphere, which I think is an evacuation precaution, right?

Yes, I realize this is basic moral philosophy 101, it's nothing impressive. But that is my understanding of the material, presented in a very condensed and rudimentary version for this convo :P

[jphamlore]

My perspective and understanding:

Under Kantian morality, looking specifically at the Categorical Imperative for the sake of time, Cap's morality is immoral. The maxim of "risk everything so that no one dies," cannot be rationally willed as universal law. This line of morality that Kant uses I believe is in line with reductio ad absurdum - taking an argument to it's most extreme level in order to prove how it does not "make sense" (for lack of a better term). No, if we apply this maxim as universal law, you can imagine that life as we know it would not function anywhere close to ideally - risking everything in a hope that nothing bad happens. I don't think I have to go into detail on why risking everything for the hope/attempt that nothing bad happens is not only impractical, but is also morally problematic.

If have, however, as a society, shied away from Kantian morality because it focuses more on the Good Will and intentions as opposed to outcomes, and this form of morality is impractical in today's society (not my opinion, it's just what we've geared towards over centuries).

So, let's look at the other end of the spectrum into Utilitarian morality as presented by Mill.
Greatest Happiness Principle: do that which brings the greatest aggregate happiness, happiness being defined as pleasure in the absence of pain.
When it comes to the no win scenario of the Illuminati being faced with either blowing up an earth or having universes ended (which they have already come across), utilitarian morality dictates they should end 7 billions lives in order to save the innumerable lives present in two universes.

The best question is: why are they ready to destroy other earths and not their own. This is a better question. I'd answer it with their duty, which is towards their earth (again, Kantian morality). But what I want to argue instead is the precautions attempted by Tony for the dyson sphere, which I think is an evacuation precaution, right?

Yes, I realize this is basic moral philosophy 101, it's nothing impressive. But that is my understanding of the material, presented in a very condensed and rudimentary version for this convo :P

Back to the actual story, Black Swan has informed the Illuminati NUMEROUS times on the comics page that their approach is hopeless, and she's the one who told them to find a bridge to view other universes in the Multiverse. The Illuminati in the story as shown are simply wrong.

And I believe it was revealed the Dyson Sphere is being built just enough for it to be a weapon not to be an evacuation alternative.

[ElGuitaristMagnifico]

Back to the actual story, Black Swan has informed the Illuminati NUMEROUS times on the comics page that their approach is hopeless, and she's the one who told them to find a bridge to view other universes in the Multiverse. The Illuminati in the story as shown are simply wrong.

Ignore the argument, cool.

And the Black Swan is a credible source, right? No other motives hinted at in the comics?
Her approach is to destroy all earths ever, whether or not they are re-colonized, so to save the multiverse. Under you agreement with Cap, I'd assume you to be sympathetic to the approach of attempting to solve the overall problem as opposed to eliminating all earths in the entire multiverse. The means of the possibility of having to eliminate a few earths justifies the end of ensuring all other infinite earths in the multiverse are safe.

Infinite earths > a couple of earths. An ugly truth, and unfortunate, but those are the circumstances the writer has created for these characters.

[G0RM]

Cap's personality is so flawed that he won't murder billions of people. Makes sense.

Truman's decision was to drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing around 200,000 Japanese civilians to save 1,000,000 US soldiers as well as several million Japanese soldiers, civilians, and possibly all of Japan if the Emperor ordered universal suicide rather than dishonor.

Cap participated in WWII, and didn't do it bloodlessly.

At one time, Cap would have gone along with it, and the numbers, of destroying one planet in one Universe rather than both worlds and both universes, thinking of it as 'acceptable loses' (rather than punching Truman in the nose, as it were!-)

It isn't that antimatter bombs kill one planet, but that they save two universes, like cutting off one leg to save the other, and the rest of the person, rather than letting gangrene win.

In the end, it's the incursions that are killing worlds, and is the incursions that have to be stopped.
Simply evacuating Earth-616 won't stop the incursions in other universes, and when it all ends, the entire multiverse goes.

Cap's faith that there is a better way isn't the same as coming up with it, and is really just such overwhelming egotism that you risk two universes rather than admit that you aren't omnipotent, omniscient, and lucky (on the other hand, the Illuminati are the same, just slightly less dependent on luck.)

[jphamlore]

Ignore the argument, cool.

And the Black Swan is a credible source, right? No other motives hinted at in the comics?
Her approach is to destroy all earths ever, whether or not they are re-colonized, so to save the multiverse. Under you agreement with Cap, I'd assume you to be sympathetic to the approach of attempting to solve the overall problem as opposed to eliminating all earths in the entire multiverse. The means of the possibility of having to eliminate a few earths justifies the end of ensuring all other infinite earths in the multiverse are safe.

Infinite earths > a couple of earths. An ugly truth, and unfortunate, but those are the circumstances the writer has created for these characters.

The Bridge is their best source. The Illuminati have by now sifted through many many incursions and found no world other than the Great Society one that has withstood the incursions successfully up to now. And you know what is the problem with trying to emulate the Great Society ... well look at what's being shown on page. The Great Society act as one. Their full attention is devoted to the problem of saving their Earth. The Illuminati are neither. One of the Illuminati has been advised by the ghost of his father to kill another member Namor. They're having to hide in secret in the Necropolis and splitting their time with their other duties as heroes. It's their immorality as an organization that is keeping them from a chance at finding a true solution.

And don't think Hickman is above eventually showing the very idea of the Illuminati in secret having the power of life or death as being totally evil. He's the writer who eventually showed the Reed who founded the Council of Reeds, which at the beginning looked like a fine idea, was literally a Nazi. Also from Avengers #1, one man was life, with a picture of Steve Rogers, and one man was death, with a picture of Tony Stark.

The Illuminati are headed down a known hopeless path that they have seen with their own eyes through Reed's Bridge.

[ElGuitaristMagnifico]

The Bridge is their best source. The Illuminati have by now sifted through many many incursions and found no world other than the Great Society one that has withstood the incursions successfully up to now. And you know what is the problem with trying to emulate the Great Society ... well look at what's being shown on page. The Great Society act as one. Their full attention is devoted to the problem of saving their Earth. The Illuminati are neither. One of the Illuminati has been advised by the ghost of his father to kill another member Namor. They're having to hide in secret in the Necropolis and splitting their time with their other duties as heroes. It's their immorality as an organization that is keeping them from a chance at finding a true solution.

And don't think Hickman is above eventually showing the very idea of the Illuminati in secret having the power of life or death as being totally evil. He's the writer who eventually showed the Reed who founded the Council of Reeds, which at the beginning looked like a fine idea, was literally a Nazi. Also from Avengers #1, one man was life, with a picture of Steve Rogers, and one man was death, with a picture of Tony Stark.

The Illuminati are headed down a known hopeless path that they have seen with their own eyes through Reed's Bridge.

Ignoring the fact that the great society has someone on their team who knows about incursions and all those shenanigans better than anyone in the Illuminati, sure it just seems like they worked on a better solution. The fact is, they had better odds and chances for being "better."

I trust a group of heroes whose morality align closer to the Illuminati than that of Cap's. Following Cap's, the 616MU would be gone by now. They are not taking the risk of "we might find a solution before the next incursion kills our universe and the other, because if they do and lose, the consequences are the death of two universes. It is, in fact, that simple.
The Secret Society did better? Cool. Different people under different circumstances with someone of superior knowledge and experience in this field than anyone on earth616.
Hickman my be in alignment with Cap's view, and will play the story out to favour Cap in the end, but that doesn't make it morally correct in our world.