At first I was disappointed that I had been overtaken. I felt like that episode of The Simpsons when Bart and Lisa's plan to save "Itchy and Scratchy", one they had labored over, had been rendered meaningless by the efforts of two doppelganger characters named Lester and Eliza. (Does that reference track?)
But then I realized that it really meant I was on to something. I had analyzed in a similar way that a pop-philosophy series that I enjoyed and somewhat respected had put forth. I should feel encouraged by it, but I'm not sure I have any hope of making my content as fresh as a successful YouTube series.
So anyway, I decided to go ahead and post the article here...
-SPOILER ALERT-
The Ethics of Thanos: Trading Lives
“We don’t trade lives,” says Captain America in Avengers: Infinity War. That’s the question the characters are faced with and motivated by throughout the movie: Is it acceptable to sacrifice lives in order to save lives? Thanos, “Mad Titan,” most powerful being in the galaxy, and the main villain of the story, definitely believes so. The way he sees it, there’s just too darn much life in the universe, and this overabundance causes suffering. He hopes to make things right by using the power of the Infinity Stones to cull half the life in the universe making things happier for everyone left behind, a kind of reverse-Rapture. He has a sense of justice in his genocide because he is being arbitrary, making no particular choice as to who lives and who dies. With the Infinity Gauntlet he can simply snap his fingers, and at random, half of sentient life in the universe will simply vanish, leaving the other half plenty of elbow room to be free and prosperous.
How he knows this is anyone’s guess. Surely there are some places in the universe that are doing just fine with the amount of people they have. Let’s just assume that Thanos knows something we don’t, like maybe the culling will be disproportionate to those areas that need the most culling. In order to do this he must obtain the six Infinity Stones, powerful crystal nuggets left over immediately after the creation of the universe.
Only very powerful beings can hold any one of these stones, as demonstrated in the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie. With the Infinity Gauntlet, Thanos has the ability to wield all six stones at once making him the most powerful being in the universe. Thanos makes many brutal sacrifices in order to obtain these stones, at least one personal to himself. The heroes are faced with their own similar possible life sacrifices in order to stop him, but there is a difference in how these sacrifices are made.
One particular Infinity Stone, the Mind Stone, is embedded in the brow of Vision, a powerful sentient android who gets much of his power from and was partially created by the Mind Stone itself. Vision informs his fellow Avenger and romantic partner Scarlet Witch that she can destroy the stone, though it will likely also destroy him as well, a no-go as far as Scarlet Witch is concerned. Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, agrees, saying, “We don’t trade lives.” They refuse to sacrifice Vision despite the fact that it will likely save trillions. Does that mean they see Vision’s life as equal to half the universe?
We see similar unwillingness to sacrifice one life or another throughout the movie. When the story begins, Thanos and his minions have annihilated a ship carrying refugee Asgardians. I suppose everything that happened in Ragnarok is now completely pointless. Thor is there along with Loki, who it turns out carries the Tesseract containing the Space Stone. Thanos promises to spare the life of Thor if Loki gives up the prize. Loki, who we know from earlier movies is more than willing to sacrifice the lives of those close to him for his own petty desires, is at first smug, and says, “Kill away.” But he relents when he sees his brother suffering from the death blows of Thanos’s Gauntlet. It turns out he was unwilling to sacrifice Thor after all.
Later there’s a fight to protect the Time Stone held by Doctor Strange. At first Strange tells Tony Stark and Spider-Man that his commitment to protecting the Stone goes beyond any of their lives and he is unwilling to compromise, but when Thanos is about to end the life of Stark, Strange willingly gives up the stone to save him. Why protect these singular lives when there is so much at stake? (I realize there’s something here that will likely be resolved in the next movie, but that is beside the point.)
Then there’s Gamora, “daughter of Thanos” and member of the Guardians of the Galaxy, who implores Peter Quill, aka Star Lord, to kill her in order to keep Thanos from finding out her secret about the Soul Stone. Peter, who is in love with Gamora, and while stilling his broken heart, agrees and attempts to do so, but is then thwarted by Thanos. After all this Gamora agrees to take Thanos to the location of the Soul Stone in order to save her sister Nebula from being tortured to death. After begging Peter to make a sacrifice of her to protect the Stone from Thanos, she is unwilling to sacrifice the life of another whom she loves. Once they reach the location, Thanos finds out he must sacrifice someone he truly loves to obtain the Stone. That someone turns out to be Gamora. Like Peter before him, he must resolve his heart, and through his own tears and Gamora’s cries of, “This is not love,” Thanos tosses her off the cliff and obtains the Stone.
In the final act, scores of Wakandans put their lives on the line to keep Thanos’s army from getting to the Mind Stone while others try to find a way to remove it from Vision without killing him. Many die, and in the end, Vision has to beg Scarlet Witch to finally destroy the Stone and him with it. And so through anguish and tears, she makes the painful sacrifice.
Both sides are clearly sacrificing lives for their objectives, but is there a difference between them? Even Thanos, the villain, is pained by the sacrifices he makes. What makes his sacrifices more villainous than those of the heroes? A major difference is that the heroes are only willing to sacrifice those who clearly choose to do so. Thanos, on the other hand, is using his powers and the Infinity Gauntlet to force others to be sacrificed for what he believes is the good of life in the universe.
Human sacrifice has long been a theme in the history of civilization from ritualistic human sacrifice to genocide. Today’s society looks back on this grisly history with revulsion and shame. However, Thanos’s goals remind me of one recent and the biggest single act of human sacrifice in history. The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II killed and maimed thousands of innocent civilians, but it’s often argued that the outcome saved the numerous more lives of American and Japanese soldiers who would have been killed had the war continued. If Thanos is a villain for choosing to sacrifice lives in an effort to save others, what then do we make of this justification? Clearly the civilians killed in the atomic explosions didn’t choose to be sacrificed, however the soldiers who would’ve fought and died had the war continued can be said to have chosen to have made that sacrifice. Even if we are to account for compulsory enlistment, the soldiers always knew what they were getting into and could have chosen different, even if it meant imprisonment or fleeing the nation, as some did at that time.
Is it heroic or villainous to sacrifice lives for any sort of greater good? Does the outcome justify the sacrifice, and does it matter whether or not the lives in question have chosen to be sacrificed? Wouldn’t the heroes have done better in the end if they were willing to trade a few more lives? Is it ever right to trade lives for lives?
Thanos sees the value in a net-gain of happiness that is worth the sacrifice of half the life in the universe. The sacrifice is justified as long as there is a positive outcome for most everyone left. It doesn’t matter at all who or what is left over as long as there is peace and prosperity. For Thanos, halving the universe of sentient life will bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. The ethics of Thanos can be described as utilitarian, though I doubt utilitarian philosophers like John Stewart Mill or Peter Singer would agree that killing half the universe would be what they would have in mind. Utilitarian ethics are typically put in the context of day-to-day choices, like watching TV all day versus doing charity work, etc. Therefore, I would described Thanos’s ethics as radical or hard utilitarianism because he is willing to make the most drastic sacrifices of all to gain what he sees as the most good.
The heroes of The Avengers, however, could be described as deontologists. They act on a duty to protect as much life as possible and avoid using any person as a means to an end even if that end is stopping Thanos from destroying half the life in the universe. They are unwilling to trade lives for lives and will only do so if and when it becomes the choice of the lives in question. They see all lives as having ends in themselves each with their own will and freedom to choose whatever outcome is in their own interests, otherwise any gains will be at the cost of individual freedom. The ethics of The Avengers is similar to that of Immanuel Kant whose famous “Categorical Imperative” outlines a duty to treat all with equal respect and to never use any person as a means to an end without consent. This may not ever achieve a greater amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, but in Kant’s view it’s the only way any of us can expect to be free to act towards our own individual goals. No personal sacrifice can be made by choice of other than the person in question.
Avengers: Infinity War gives us clear distinctions between the heroes and the villains, and so the movie, at least, has decided who is wrong. But is Thanos wrong? He gives us an example of his success when he tells Gamora how her people turned out after implementing his plan on her home world with violent military force instead of an Infinity Gauntlet, taking her as a prize. Before he arrived, he says, her people were starving and in misery, but now, after culling the population, they live in prosperity and happiness. Do they remember the horror Thanos inflicted on them? He doesn’t say, but it seems likely that the trauma lives on somewhere in their midst.
Yet still, there are thinkers today who may well agree with Thanos’s radical utilitarianism towards overall happiness for the most amount of people and the greater good. Would they find it acceptable to cull lives in order to maintain peace and prosperity? I know many would agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an acceptable means to ending the war and saving the lives of thousands more, even if it were not by the choice of those who were sacrificed. Thanos, like a utilitarian, is looking toward the outcome or consequences of his actions, and as he sits and watches the sunset, thinking of how much happier and more prosperous life will be in the universe once he has snapped his Infinity Gauntleted fingers, it brings a smile to his face.
No comments:
Post a Comment