This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.
Theory talk:Arthur Petrelli: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
imported>Hardvice |
imported>LightSpectra No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*** The question is: was Adam misanthropic, or did he generally believe the same thing Linderman did, that mass destruction leads to a better world for the survivors? Again, I get the impression that it was the latter: "God had the right idea in flooding the world." -- [[User:LightSpectra|LightSpectra]] 18:59, 15 December 2007 (EST) |
*** The question is: was Adam misanthropic, or did he generally believe the same thing Linderman did, that mass destruction leads to a better world for the survivors? Again, I get the impression that it was the latter: "God had the right idea in flooding the world." -- [[User:LightSpectra|LightSpectra]] 18:59, 15 December 2007 (EST) |
||
****But that's not utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is maximizing utility (happiness, wealth, etc.) for the ''most'' people. Nothing that benefits at most 7% of the population at the expense of 93% of the population can be described as "utilitarian". Faced with a decision between allowing a bad world to continue, or creating a "better" world for only 7% of the population, utilitarianism would ''always'' choose the former, because a bad world for 100% of the population is more utility than a paradise for 7% of the population (and no world for 93%). Utilitarianism considers only those actions which are for the greater good to be moral. I'm not arguing that Adam doesn't believe his motives to be pure in the same way that Linderman does. I'm saying that his rationalization has nothing whatsoever to do with utilitarianism as an ethical system, and the theory should be re-phrased to avoid suggesting that it does.--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 19:35, 15 December 2007 (EST) |
****But that's not utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is maximizing utility (happiness, wealth, etc.) for the ''most'' people. Nothing that benefits at most 7% of the population at the expense of 93% of the population can be described as "utilitarian". Faced with a decision between allowing a bad world to continue, or creating a "better" world for only 7% of the population, utilitarianism would ''always'' choose the former, because a bad world for 100% of the population is more utility than a paradise for 7% of the population (and no world for 93%). Utilitarianism considers only those actions which are for the greater good to be moral. I'm not arguing that Adam doesn't believe his motives to be pure in the same way that Linderman does. I'm saying that his rationalization has nothing whatsoever to do with utilitarianism as an ethical system, and the theory should be re-phrased to avoid suggesting that it does.--[[User:Hardvice|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice|(talk)]]</small> 19:35, 15 December 2007 (EST) |
||
*****Point taken. I'll rephrase. -- [[User:LightSpectra|LightSpectra]] 20:24, 15 December 2007 (EST) |
|||
Revision as of 01:24, 16 December 2007
Utilitarianism
"'Dallas' has an extremely utilitarian philosophy, even willing to kill a young girl to win the war. Most of the antagonists of Heroes appear to use the same modus operandi: Adam Monroe wanted to punish the world for its sins, and Linderman wanted to unite the world by killing .07% of its population."
"Utilitarianism" is defined by maximizing utility, or creating the best world for the most people. While it can be argued that killing .07% of the world's population to improve the world for the remaining 99.93% is consistent with utilitarianism, killing 93% of the Earth's population to punish them is not.--Hardvice (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- I was under the impression that Adam wanted to get the world to stop committing its evils by punishing it. He was playing God. --LightSpectra 17:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- "Playing God" =/= "utilitarianism". It's inaccurate to describe all of these character's motivations as "utilitarian". Linderman, possibly. Petrelli, to a lesser extent--he's Machiavellian, but there's no reason to believe he's doing so to maximize utility. Monroe, not in the slightest.--Hardvice (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- The question is: was Adam misanthropic, or did he generally believe the same thing Linderman did, that mass destruction leads to a better world for the survivors? Again, I get the impression that it was the latter: "God had the right idea in flooding the world." -- LightSpectra 18:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- But that's not utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is maximizing utility (happiness, wealth, etc.) for the most people. Nothing that benefits at most 7% of the population at the expense of 93% of the population can be described as "utilitarian". Faced with a decision between allowing a bad world to continue, or creating a "better" world for only 7% of the population, utilitarianism would always choose the former, because a bad world for 100% of the population is more utility than a paradise for 7% of the population (and no world for 93%). Utilitarianism considers only those actions which are for the greater good to be moral. I'm not arguing that Adam doesn't believe his motives to be pure in the same way that Linderman does. I'm saying that his rationalization has nothing whatsoever to do with utilitarianism as an ethical system, and the theory should be re-phrased to avoid suggesting that it does.--Hardvice (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- Point taken. I'll rephrase. -- LightSpectra 20:24, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- But that's not utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is maximizing utility (happiness, wealth, etc.) for the most people. Nothing that benefits at most 7% of the population at the expense of 93% of the population can be described as "utilitarian". Faced with a decision between allowing a bad world to continue, or creating a "better" world for only 7% of the population, utilitarianism would always choose the former, because a bad world for 100% of the population is more utility than a paradise for 7% of the population (and no world for 93%). Utilitarianism considers only those actions which are for the greater good to be moral. I'm not arguing that Adam doesn't believe his motives to be pure in the same way that Linderman does. I'm saying that his rationalization has nothing whatsoever to do with utilitarianism as an ethical system, and the theory should be re-phrased to avoid suggesting that it does.--Hardvice (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- The question is: was Adam misanthropic, or did he generally believe the same thing Linderman did, that mass destruction leads to a better world for the survivors? Again, I get the impression that it was the latter: "God had the right idea in flooding the world." -- LightSpectra 18:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
- "Playing God" =/= "utilitarianism". It's inaccurate to describe all of these character's motivations as "utilitarian". Linderman, possibly. Petrelli, to a lesser extent--he's Machiavellian, but there's no reason to believe he's doing so to maximize utility. Monroe, not in the slightest.--Hardvice (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (EST)