S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
You're not talking about letting someone die. You're talking about proactively killing them.
The results are the same either way and as a consequentialist, that's what I'm concerned with. The goal is to stop people dying. If I want billions of people to not be dead, what must I do?
A big part of the reason that people don't get consequentialism is that instead of thinking, 'I just killed 7 billion people,' they think, 'I just saved one girl.'
This is a story, not real life, so you need to abide by the established rules of the universe, not say "in real life superheroes couldn't save the day every time." In real life, there are no superheroes. Here, there are, and they must do as they always do - defeat impossible odds to save the day.
But I don't think that's a very moral message. If they're aiming for, 'try to save as many people as you can' then they missed. If you tried to apply that advice in real life there would be situations where you made the world a much worse place than it would otherwise be because of important differences between fiction and reality.
But I will say, "IF
we knew that the laws of physics had a special exception in them for sufficiently heroic people such that they could always 'find another way' THEN
, if we were reasonably confident about that, it would be wrong to sacrifice one person to save billions."
So, if you think that applies to this story, I will say the X-Men are in the right. That would make the Avengers
a bunch of cunts, though.