The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[PDH]

With the death toll and massive potential for destruction of the Navy at Pearl Harbor, I think it is reasonable to say that a sneak attack by Japanese on American soil could be very damaging and cost a lot of life. Perhaps not in the 4 billion lives range, but you yourself said in another thread that the ratio for life loss for simply murdering one person was a lot lower than 4 billion. We're not even talking about killing Japanese Americans, just holding them against their will for the duration of the war. Surely that qualifies under the same principles.

It's a difference of degree. There's like five extra zeroes on the end in the case of Phoenix. Enough that it outweighs the consequences of detaining people against their will by orders of magnitude.

We all accept this reasoning. We know that some percentage of the prisoners in our jails are innocent. We think it would be worse to arrest nobody. We may even be right.

[S.F. Jude Terror]

It's a difference of degree. There's like five extra zeroes on the end in the case of Phoenix. Enough that it outweighs the consequences of detaining people against their will by orders of magnitude.

We all accept this reasoning. We know that some percentage of the prisoners in our jails are innocent. We think it would be worse to arrest nobody. We may even be right.

Ok, so in your opinion, where is the line? If the Phoenix was going to kill 100 people? 1000? 10000? At what point does it become necessary to infringe upon the rights of another to protect others?

[PDH]

Ok, so in your opinion, where is the line? If the Phoenix was going to kill 100 people? 1000? 10000? At what point does it become necessary to infringe upon the rights of another to protect others?

Short answer: before seven billion. Long answer...

I think that's an incredibly complicated issue. Some utilitarians, for example, would say, 'whatever leads to the maximum level of utility,' others would say, 'whatever leads to the highest average utility.' There are other positions, too. I'm not even strictly speaking a utilitarian and I think this is an open question. That's why I call myself a consequentialist but I don't advocate any particular version of consequentialism. There is clearly still a lot of work to be done in this area.

If it was a simple question of lives saved, then, all else being equal, two lives would be enough to justifying taking one, if that really is your only choice (if you can save all three, obviously that would be preferable). If there are two bombs, miles apart, one in a city with a population of 1 and another in a city with a population of 2 and there's only enough time to defuse one bomb, obviously I'm going for the city with 2 people in it.

However, there's more than just lives saved to consider.

Humans can't be trusted to run these calculations most of the time and people want to live in societies where they have certain privileges so we end up with notions like 'rights' and 'laws' as a crude approximation of the resulting compromise. But we're still justifying those things on consequentialist grounds. If I say, 'Why is this illegal?' or 'Why should I have this right?' all you can do, really, is point to the consequences of not having it and say, 'Do you want that to happen?'

So, if you say to a consequentialist, 'Should we get rid of laws and rights, then, since these are really just useful fictions?' the consequentialist is going to say, 'No, because that would lead to basically bedlam. The consequences would be horrible and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.'

In this case the consequences of killing someone to save billions of people are that it sets a worrying precedent and makes people feel less secure. That's not to be waved away as unimportant but neither is it some all-important deontological principle that must hold in all situations. We have these rights only because they probably do more good on the whole and we can't think of anything better. The moment that changes, they should go.

The consequence of not killing her, OTOH, is an unacceptable risk of billions of innocent deaths. Assuming that killing her doesn't make it worse, of course.

If doing the right thing leads to the deaths of billions of innocent people, in what sense was that the right thing? Because God says so? Because we have fundamental basic rights? Because humans are intrinsically valuable? But there is no God, rights are a recent human invention that most humans throughout history have never experienced and value is extrinsic not intrinsic. Worse, even if none of these things were the case it wouldn't provide a basis for morality. Suppose God commanded that children be beaten? Suppose that one race of people had the 'right' to beat their children, as has been the case in most cultures. Suppose turnips turned out to have more intrinsic value than children? In none of these cases would that permit harming innocent children. The only answer to the question that begins this paragraph that makes sense to me is 'Because it would lead to even worse consequences if we didn't do it.'

So whatever it is that we're worried about has to be worse than the deaths of billions of innocent people. Bad as violating someone's rights is, it's not that bad.

[habitual]

But this isn't about protecting Hope. It's about protecting the world. They can't just warn Hope. They have to be proactive. Protecting Hope isn't the main goal.

Cap didn't even need to talk to Scott, but still tried. Scott had shown his true colors during both Children's Crusade (when he attacked the Avengers without provocation) and Schism. Why would he be any different this time around?

The more I think about it the more the idea of the Avengers being anywhere near qualified to handle the Phoenix is pretty laughable considering the fact that they can't even handle their own members.

Between the Scarlet Witch and the Sentry I think they should just hang this one up and let the X-men deal with it.

Hab

[Amoebas]

I'm really impressed that this topic is getting so much debate going. The poll is nearly 50/50 which I never expected.

Remember, the poll doesn't account for those that didn't vote because of it's stupidity.

[S.F. Jude Terror]

Short answer: before seven billion. Long answer...

I think that's an incredibly complicated issue. Some utilitarians, for example, would say, 'whatever leads to the maximum level of utility,' others would say, 'whatever leads to the highest average utility.' There are other positions, too. I'm not even strictly speaking a utilitarian and I think this is an open question. That's why I call myself a consequentialist but I don't advocate any particular version of consequentialism. There is clearly still a lot of work to be done in this area.

If it was a simple question of lives saved, then, all else being equal, two lives would be enough to justifying taking one, if that really is your only choice (if you can save all three, obviously that would be preferable). If there are two bombs, miles apart, one in a city with a population of 1 and another in a city with a population of 2 and there's only enough time to defuse one bomb, obviously I'm going for the city with 2 people in it.

However, there's more than just lives saved to consider.

Humans can't be trusted to run these calculations most of the time and people want to live in societies where they have certain privileges so we end up with notions like 'rights' and 'laws' as a crude approximation of the resulting compromise. But we're still justifying those things on consequentialist grounds. If I say, 'Why is this illegal?' or 'Why should I have this right?' all you can do, really, is point to the consequences of not having it and say, 'Do you want that to happen?'

So, if you say to a consequentialist, 'Should we get rid of laws and rights, then, since these are really just useful fictions?' the consequentialist is going to say, 'No, because that would lead to basically bedlam. The consequences would be horrible and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.'

In this case the consequences of killing someone to save billions of people are that it sets a worrying precedent and makes people feel less secure. That's not to be waved away as unimportant but neither is it some all-important deontological principle that must hold in all situations. We have these rights only because they probably do more good on the whole and we can't think of anything better. The moment that changes, they should go.

The consequence of not killing her, OTOH, is an unacceptable risk of billions of innocent deaths. Assuming that killing her doesn't make it worse, of course.

If doing the right thing leads to the deaths of billions of innocent people, in what sense was that the right thing? Because God says so? Because we have fundamental basic rights? Because humans are intrinsically valuable? But there is no God, rights are a recent human invention that most humans throughout history have never experienced and value is extrinsic not intrinsic. Worse, even if none of these things were the case it wouldn't provide a basis for morality. Suppose God commanded that children be beaten? Suppose that one race of people had the 'right' to beat their children, as has been the case in most cultures. Suppose turnips turned out to have more intrinsic value than children? In none of these cases would that permit harming innocent children. The only answer to the question that begins this paragraph that makes sense to me is 'Because it would lead to even worse consequences if we didn't do it.'

So whatever it is that we're worried about has to be worse than the deaths of billions of innocent people. Bad as violating someone's rights is, it's not that bad.

Ok. But I'm asking you about my metaphor, which you called poor. I think you could argue that my metaphor is poor because the rationale of "The Phoenix is coming to Earth and could kill billions of people" makes more sense than the rationale of "Japanese Americans might engage in a terrorist attack on American soil" (though I think both are equally flawed), but you specifically called it poor because of the scope.

Even accepting that one rationale may be more flawed than the other, all that really matters here is the conviction of the people who want to take away the freedom of another person, because we are questioning whether, from their viewpoint, what they are doing is justified. In the case of the Avengers, they want to take away Hope's freedom because they firmly believe that not doing so will pose a great danger to the lives of billions of people. In the case of American officials during WW2, they want to take away the freedom of Japanese Americans because they firmly believe that not doing so will pose a great danger to the lives of (hundreds/thousands/millions) of people. Whether one belief is more just than the others is not relative here - both groups have the same conviction, so the only difference now is of scope. The ratio of people endangered vs. people whose freedom must be taken away to prevent it. This ratio is obviously much higher in the case of hope, because it is only one person to take freedom from, and billions of potential deaths. But the ration in the other case is surely more than 1:1, and regardless, death > imprisonment.

Taking that into account, where do you draw the line?

[ReturnoftheMack]

The more I think about it the more the idea of the Avengers being anywhere near qualified to handle the Phoenix is pretty laughable considering the fact that they can't even handle their own members.

Between the Scarlet Witch and the Sentry I think they should just hang this one up and let the X-men deal with it.

Hab

Scarlet Witch is a mutant. Quiksilver who was controlling her was a mutant and a member of X-Factor.

Their team consists of Magneto (ex-villain), Emma Frost (ex-villain), Danger (ex-villain), Juggernaut/Cyttorak (ex-villain), Magik (ex-villain) and Namor (ex-villain).

Meanwhile, Legion caused the Age of Apocalypse and Onslaught (Xavier and Magneto) caused Heroes Reborn.

The X-Men don't have the greatest track record either.

[BubbaKanoosh]

Quicksilver, Wanda, Clint - all ex-villains

Iron Man and Strange should know what happened the last time they tried to take soneone off planet without them willing to go - WWH

[IvCNuB4]

Remember, the poll doesn't account for those that didn't vote because of it's stupidity.

[PDH]

Ok. But I'm asking you about my metaphor, which you called poor. I think you could argue that my metaphor is poor because the rationale of "The Phoenix is coming to Earth and could kill billions of people" makes more sense than the rationale of "Japanese Americans might engage in a terrorist attack on American soil" (though I think both are equally flawed), but you specifically called it poor because of the scope.

Even accepting that one rationale may be more flawed than the other, all that really matters here is the conviction of the people who want to take away the freedom of another person, because we are questioning whether, from their viewpoint, what they are doing is justified. In the case of the Avengers, they want to take away Hope's freedom because they firmly believe that not doing so will pose a great danger to the lives of billions of people. In the case of American officials during WW2, they want to take away the freedom of Japanese Americans because they firmly believe that not doing so will pose a great danger to the lives of (hundreds/thousands/millions) of people. Whether one belief is more just than the others is not relative here - both groups have the same conviction, so the only difference now is of scope. The ratio of people endangered vs. people whose freedom must be taken away to prevent it. This ratio is obviously much higher in the case of hope, because it is only one person to take freedom from, and billions of potential deaths. But the ration in the other case is surely more than 1:1, and regardless, death > imprisonment.

Taking that into account, where do you draw the line?

I can't give an exact number for a host of reasons. There was a time when we couldn't precisely measure temperature. We hadn't invented thermometers, we didn't understand the physics behind heat and came up with lots of crazy notions like phlogiston. I think there were some people who nonetheless really did know that the sun was hotter than a candle. But because we were grossly ignorant of a lot of things like nuclear fusion and because our models of the sun and its behaviour usually involved sun gods literally pulling it around on a chariot, I can't be completely confident of that. We certainly didn't know just how hot the sun was. Even our most insane religions understated the scale involved by orders of magnitude. The truth dwarfed the human imagination.

So there isn't going to be an exact number. We're still in the 'Sun God pulls the sun around on a chariot' stage of morality. We don't have morality thermometers. And unfortunately it's still important for us to know when things are morally hot because nearly all of our decisions are based on this. We'll have to do the best we can.

I think the American officials should have known that what they were doing did more harm than good on the whole. I think they had sufficient information and a good enough grasp of the principles. Of course, it's easy for me to say that from an armchair with the benefit of hindsight. Nonetheless, I will say it: I think it was wrong.

I draw the line before there but I think Hope is on the other side of the line. The sun is hotter than a candle. I can't tell you exactly how much hotter.

[PDH]

The Avengers can be responsible for equivalent crimes and yet still be right about Hope. We can't just say, 'well, you're not perfect, either, therefore you're wrong.' Even if they're hypocrites, they might still be right.

[BubbaKanoosh]

Protector - former world conqueror

Stark and Ms Marvel - raging alcoholics

Clint - supporter of rape

[BubbaKanoosh]

Red Hulk - military official gone all Apocalypse Now

I can go on bout the Avengers line-up

[BubbaKanoosh]

Former villain and current X-men Namor - former Avenger

[BubbaKanoosh]

Thing - chicken shit who hides in France instead of being a man and picking a side.