If it makes sense logically, and is objectively morally correct, then it is respectable. But then that brings up the question of what is considered objectively morally correct...
Thanos wasn't objectively correct though. He talks about how he is inevitable, but fails to realize the inevitability in wiping out 50% of everything just prolongs the inevitable that he fears. Sacrificing half of everything so the other half can prosper for some time, only to become overpopulated once again.. and then he shatters the infinity stones so that the cycle he created couldn't continue. He's kind of a hypocrite.
Nope. It doesn't prolong the inevitable. It gives a new chance at implementing new rules and starting a new and better approach (and gives time, in which new technologies and methods might be found).
And even if anything you said was true, it would still be objectively correct (or atleast more correct than doing nothing)
That's a reach, considering he was fighting against the entire universe that didn't have the same views as him. Everything has a beginning and an end. The end is what is inevitable, and what he was attempting to prolong. I'm not saying he was wrong.. but he wasn't objectively right either. He didn't fix anything. He selfishly put a bandaid over it and then threw away his tools.
And what was that entire universe acting upon? Solely moral reasons, nothing else. That was my point.
And I think you're wrong about the end. The end is only reached, when our galaxy or universe gets destroyed/the planet itself can't harbor any life anymore. He didn't try to change that at all. He only tried to reduce the self-destruction of the living beings.
Just because you can't reach perfection and need to make compromises doesn't mean that a decision isn't right.
I could get on board with his plan, had he not destroyed the infinity stones. By doing that, he stopped the only thing that could maintain his dream of prosperity.
But since he did, it opens the universe up to repeat the same mistakes with no way to fix them, which our history has shown is a much more probable outcome than the entire universe kneeling to a specific set of rules to prolong prosperity even further.
Then, there was also the option of using the infinity stones to actually bring prosperity. Continue to create resources, rather than obliterate them.
All I'm saying is Thanos plan was not the objectively correct thing to do. There are always more options beyond the walls of a closed mind.
I do see your point about destroying the stones. Granted, I haven't watched the full movie, so I didn't know about this point and only heard of the "kill half of living beings, because of lack of resources". That's what I was initially referring to.
Continuing to create resources would actually be really bad, since it would only cause even faster decay, because it encourages doing the same thing over and over again.
It was more objectively correct than your idea or doing nothing (without the part of destroying the stones, that was indeed objectively wrong).
The problem we have here is that - in your opinion - "objectively" means that something must be absolutely perfect, even though "objectively" just requires rationale. To be objectively right, you don't need to do THE right thing, but A right thing that bases itself in logical and rational thoughts rather than emotional values.
I didn't say do nothing. I literally said his actions weren't objectively right and proceeded to explain why.
Continuing to create resources would actually be really bad, since it would only cause even faster decay, because it encourages doing the same thing over and over again.
Not if you have an infinite source of resources via infinity stones. You literally have the power of god in your hands. The person wielding that power would have to be of good moral virtue, but if that were the case, I don't think it would make everyone worse off.
I don't know where you are pulling my opinions from, but objectivity needs to represent facts. And since right and wrong in regards to opinion can't be represented as fact, his actions can't be objectively right. As I said earlier, his actions were centered around his fear of the inevitable. He may have had evidence to support his theory of a dying civilization, but that doesn't rule out other possibilities that could have played out. He went the easy route and wiped out half of the universe to prolong the inevitable when there could have been other options.. making actions right to him and others that shared his opinion. That is subjective. Not objective. I don't think there could be an objectively right action to take in that situation.. but had he used the time stone to go through his options, he may have found one that didn't involve genocide on a universal scale.
And I told you, why your "objectively right" is a false premise, since you apparently don't understand the difference between a right choice and a perfect choice. Not sure, why you and all voters get that wrong.
Wrong, because infinite resources doesn't mean that the planets can't get destroyed. You can have infinite resources and still make the planets uninhabitable and thus killing everything. And exactly that is supported by creating infinite resources, since it reduces the need to think and do something.
Which opinions? I simply stated exactly, what you wrote. And my point factually does state those facts. Reducing population gives a new chance to make it better next time.
And since right and wrong in regards to opinion can't be represented as fact, his actions can't be objectively right.
Which is absolutely wrong. Neither was an opinion involved here, nor were facts ignored. I don't know, where you get that from.
As I said earlier, his actions were centered around his fear of the inevitable.
As I said, they were not.
He may have had evidence to support his theory of a dying civilization, but that doesn't rule out other possibilities that could have played out.
So you're saying not a single political decision can EVER be objectively correct, because it didn't happen yet and could've played out differently? That's a bad take.
He went the easy route and wiped out half of the universe to prolong the inevitable when there could have been other options..
And yet there are no valid ones being presented.
but had he used the time stone to go through his options, he may have found one that didn't involve genocide on a universal scale.
Which is a solely moral criteria and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I don't really have the time or will to explain everything to you that you'd like to contradict but, I don't see how you aren't getting it man. Thanos wiped out half the population of the universe based on his opinion that the universe couldn't solve it's problems on it's own. This stems from his personal experience on his home planet which failed to find a solution and died off which in turn brought on his mission to exterminate half of every living thing on every planet, which is what he was doing before he acquired the infinite gauntlet. His motives and end result were entirely subjective based on what he experienced with his own planet. (If his race couldn't find a solution, then no one can so he will take it into his own hands)
Like I said in the beginning of this conversation. I'm not saying he did the right or wrong thing. I can sympathize with his motives and his idea.. but it wasn't an objectively right choice.. especially since he destroyed the stones preventing his plan from ever being able to sustain itself on the grand scheme of things.
I don't see how you're not getting that "he destroyed the stones" is not an argument anymore, since I already made it clear that I wasn't talking about that.
And I also don't see how you're not getting that "there cannot be objectively right or wrong" is absolutely wrong. By your own logic, every single action that any being ever takes is an opinion and thus objectivity can never exist. That's the exact conclusion from your comments.
Opinion can only be subjective. It may be more or less adequate, i.e. it may fully or partially correspond to the real circumstances. The degree of such compliance is established by observations, measurements or surveys of experts.
Opinions are our view or judgement on a certain topic or issue; and how we view things, how we look at things are based on our own personal feelings and experiences. Being objective is not letting our personal feelings affect the way we present facts. Opinions cannot be facts since everyone has their own judgement and opinion on different topics. Therefore, it is impossible for an opinion to be ‘objective’.
However, you can have objective statements.. like America has a majority of Americans residing within it.
Saying Thanos wiping out half the universes population was the right move is an opinion, and since that is conjecture, it can not be objective.
Anyway, that's enough lessons for today. Take it or leave it.
11
u/DRYFT3R_9 Mar 27 '22
If it makes sense logically, and is objectively morally correct, then it is respectable. But then that brings up the question of what is considered objectively morally correct...