utilitarianism is concerned with the big picture No, it can't be. Even the more humanistic utilitarianism of Mill is concerned with a very small picture. All more being the same, what if "inequality, destabilization, and conflict" will result in a better outcome after them? It is just a small price to pay... Anyone can cite the atomic bombs the America threw above Japan as the master successful example of utilitarianism.
The problem with your argument is that utilitarianism is concerned with the big picture and it isn't a narrow-minded calculation limited only to the confines of individual situations or circumstances. Your anti-utilitarian example is false, it is not utilitarian to kill one person to save five. No citizen would willingly submit to such a system where any man, woman, or child could be legally killed at any time without consequence in order to harvest their organs for another. This is the opposite of utilitarianism because it results in inequality, destabilization, and conflict.
He went with a super simplistic and costly fix. Heck, he could have gone around creating new planets and resources... Right off the bat, you've acknowledged a major utilitarian problem, there were better alternatives that were neither considered nor acknowledged. So not only was this guy not utilitarian, he was a fanatic more concerned with legitimizing his preferred solution than finding the best possible solution. True utilitarianism protects people from being exploited for the supposed good of others, especially if such an exploitation is unnecessary. There is a big difference between X being willing to sacrifice himself for what he thinks is the greater good (the good guys) and X being willing to sacrifice Y for what X thinks is the greater good (bad guy). It is absolutely false to claim Thanos would be pro choice. By definition, he opposes choice. He has the ego and hubris to believe that he alone has the authority to make the choice for everyone in violation of their autonomy and right to self-determination. Such a person would never willingly permit a system where people could make the "wrong" choice. At the same time, there is an uncomfortable comparison between Thanos and the pro life movement. Both believe it is necessary to violate the rights of others (women) for the greater good. Both refuse to acknowledge or entertain alternative courses of action that would minimize human suffering. Both believe they have the authority to make the choice for everyone and that such a freedom should be denied to people in case they make the "wrong" choice. If we are to say that abortion is wrong because X is sacrificing Y for what X believes to be the greater good, surely that same logic and morality must lead us to condemn the pro life solution as well.
Gosh, you were doing well and I was gonna "like" your post . . . until I hit these lines: "At the same time, there is an uncomfortable comparison between Thanos and the pro life movement. Both believe it is necessary to violate the rights of others (women) for the greater good." False. You're presupposing that women have a "right" kill their own babies. They don't. Since that's the case, the choice has been (at least morally, even if they do it anyway) taken out of their hands - by the God who establishes the fact that killing babies (and other innocents) is wrong. Ergo, no human authority is taking that choice away from them. Rather, where antiabortion laws exist, they are manifesting obedience to a Higher Power than the preferences of (some) women.
That's just another point in favor of my argument that Thanos has more in common with the pro life movement. Your justification: "I'm right because I speak for GOD," is identical to Thanos' justification: "I'm right because I speak for the Universe."
Let's back up here. My observation stands: you're presupposing that women have a right to abort. That, in turn, presupposes a universal standard of rights, wrongs, and responsibilities. That being the case, if -- to use your terminology -- I think "I'm right because I speak for God," and Thanos thinks he's "right because [he] speak[s] for the Universe" -- then by what authority do you speak? And why should the rest of us accept your universal standard as actually authoritative?
Thanks for pointing out the unmistakable, if unitentional, connection of this movie to the abortion holocaust. May it persuade others, especially the pro-choicers, to gain greater appreciation for the value of human life. Another movie that comes to mind with similar parallels is "The Island."
No, it can't be. Even the more humanistic utilitarianism of Mill is concerned with a very small picture. All more being the same, what if "inequality, destabilization, and conflict" will result in a better outcome after them? It is just a small price to pay...
Anyone can cite the atomic bombs the America threw above Japan as the master successful example of utilitarianism.
Your anti-utilitarian example is false, it is not utilitarian to kill one person to save five. No citizen would willingly submit to such a system where any man, woman, or child could be legally killed at any time without consequence in order to harvest their organs for another.
This is the opposite of utilitarianism because it results in inequality, destabilization, and conflict. He went with a super simplistic and costly fix. Heck, he could have gone around creating new planets and resources...
Right off the bat, you've acknowledged a major utilitarian problem, there were better alternatives that were neither considered nor acknowledged. So not only was this guy not utilitarian, he was a fanatic more concerned with legitimizing his preferred solution than finding the best possible solution. True utilitarianism protects people from being exploited for the supposed good of others, especially if such an exploitation is unnecessary.
There is a big difference between X being willing to sacrifice himself for what he thinks is the greater good (the good guys) and X being willing to sacrifice Y for what X thinks is the greater good (bad guy).
It is absolutely false to claim Thanos would be pro choice. By definition, he opposes choice. He has the ego and hubris to believe that he alone has the authority to make the choice for everyone in violation of their autonomy and right to self-determination. Such a person would never willingly permit a system where people could make the "wrong" choice.
At the same time, there is an uncomfortable comparison between Thanos and the pro life movement. Both believe it is necessary to violate the rights of others (women) for the greater good. Both refuse to acknowledge or entertain alternative courses of action that would minimize human suffering. Both believe they have the authority to make the choice for everyone and that such a freedom should be denied to people in case they make the "wrong" choice.
If we are to say that abortion is wrong because X is sacrificing Y for what X believes to be the greater good, surely that same logic and morality must lead us to condemn the pro life solution as well.
"At the same time, there is an uncomfortable comparison between Thanos and the pro life movement. Both believe it is necessary to violate the rights of others (women) for the greater good."
False. You're presupposing that women have a "right" kill their own babies. They don't. Since that's the case, the choice has been (at least morally, even if they do it anyway) taken out of their hands - by the God who establishes the fact that killing babies (and other innocents) is wrong.
Ergo, no human authority is taking that choice away from them. Rather, where antiabortion laws exist, they are manifesting obedience to a Higher Power than the preferences of (some) women.
Your justification: "I'm right because I speak for GOD," is identical to Thanos' justification: "I'm right because I speak for the Universe."
That being the case, if -- to use your terminology -- I think "I'm right because I speak for God," and Thanos thinks he's "right because [he] speak[s] for the Universe" -- then by what authority do you speak? And why should the rest of us accept your universal standard as actually authoritative?