Anonymous wrote:Thanks is espousing what we call a utilitarian view - the greatest good for the greatest number, the ends justify the means (consequentialism), the few can be sacrificed for the many. JS Mill is probably the most famous of utilitarian thinkers.

What you are espousing is a deonotological view, where rules (universally applied) are more important than the consequences. Rules like, don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, etc., are important to apply universally, rather than have them apply only when they don't get int the way of what you want. Kant is the most famous proponent of deontology.

There's an older book, Sophie's World, that goes through a lot of different philosophical approaches to life that might be worth reading with your kids.

There's also an excellent short story, "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson, that provides a different perspective on utilitarianism.

Finally, I'd also read Peter Singer, who is probably the most famous utilitarian philosopher alive today. His work on vegetarianism is especially influential.

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble explaining to my tweens and teens why a justification such as "the greater good" isn't sufficient to support an act that is wrong on the scale of the individual. Yes, this came up while watching the Marvel Avenger movies, when to my shock my tween and teen boys expressed the view that Thanos isn't evil/criminally insane as he just wants to eliminate hunger and poverty. I tried to be straightforward with a discussion of how the end doesn't justify the means, but none of them seemed convinced. If anyone has a suggestion for a better line of argument, or an online or other resource dealing with ethics/morality for kids in general or specifically with the ethics/morality of Thanos's actions, thanks in advance!

Anonymous wrote:Thanks is espousing what we call a utilitarian view - the greatest good for the greatest number, the ends justify the means (consequentialism), the few can be sacrificed for the many. JS Mill is probably the most famous of utilitarian thinkers.

What you are espousing is a deonotological view, where rules (universally applied) are more important than the consequences. Rules like, don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, etc., are important to apply universally, rather than have them apply only when they don't get int the way of what you want. Kant is the most famous proponent of deontology.

There's an older book, Sophie's World, that goes through a lot of different philosophical approaches to life that might be worth reading with your kids.

There's also an excellent short story, "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson, that provides a different perspective on utilitarianism.

Finally, I'd also read Peter Singer, who is probably the most famous utilitarian philosopher alive today. His work on vegetarianism is especially influential.

Anonymous wrote:I am having trouble explaining to my tweens and teens why a justification such as "the greater good" isn't sufficient to support an act that is wrong on the scale of the individual. Yes, this came up while watching the Marvel Avenger movies, when to my shock my tween and teen boys expressed the view that Thanos isn't evil/criminally insane as he just wants to eliminate hunger and poverty. I tried to be straightforward with a discussion of how the end doesn't justify the means, but none of them seemed convinced. If anyone has a suggestion for a better line of argument, or an online or other resource dealing with ethics/morality for kids in general or specifically with the ethics/morality of Thanos's actions, thanks in advance!

Anonymous wrote:Some possible points for discussion:

There are lots of non-lethal solutions to hunger and poverty -- we have plenty of resources to go round, they are just not evenly distributed. After "the snap" the distribution was still uneven: it's not like food and money appeared in impoverished areas. Basically, Thanos "solved" the wrong problem and therefore solved nothing.

If you were a kid or a SAHP and your parent/provider was "snapped," now you are hungry and poor. If you were already hungry and poor, now you're even worse off without your parent, partner, friend, etc. Thanos created extra hunger and poverty, but as mentioned above did not distribute food and money to those already in need. Net loss for everyone.

Just being practical, supply chains and other systems don't work without the people who don't know how to work them. People aren't fungible in that way. It's very likely that if 50% of the world's workers disappeared in an instant, we would all starve and/or blow up. There would be all kinds of pollution, perhaps nuclear events, worker shortages on farms and in factories, etc. Again, net loss.

If existing legal constructs continued to exist (as the post-snap movie segments and Captain America TV show seem indicate they do) then people wouldn't just move into unoccupied homes and land. The owner's relatives would still have a claim.

thank you! it did not occur to me to discuss the practical consequences of the 'snap' and how things were not resolved in the way Thanos's comments might lead the audience to believe. great idea!

All the above go to the point that people who think they have "the solution" are usually wrong. To exercise power like that, even if you mean well, is to do unintended evil.

On top of that, Thanos was not personally affected by overpopulation: he was basically concern trolling. He never asked the "suffering" people what they wanted: he did it in the name of people who he never talked to, did not ask for his "help," and were further hurt by his actions. In doing so he injured their autonomy and personhood.

And finally, it's simply wrong to cause pain and death. To cause so many people to lose loved ones -- no end justifies that trauma, especially not an abstract one.