Theory talk:Arthur Petrelli: Difference between revisions
imported>Terrifried No edit summary |
imported>Isaac Mendez →Arthur will explode: new section |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Someone is making awfully accurate fan theories. We may have an insider here.... |
Someone is making awfully accurate fan theories. We may have an insider here.... |
||
[[User:Terrifried|Terrifried]] 20:11, 19 October 2008 (EDT) |
[[User:Terrifried|Terrifried]] 20:11, 19 October 2008 (EDT) |
||
== Arthur will explode == |
|||
New theory: I think once Arthur has stolen peter's abilities, and attempt to use Ted's ability, he will explode, just like [[Peter Petrelli]] and [[Gabriel Gray (exposed future)]]. Am I wrong? --[[User:Isaac Mendez|Isaac Mendez]] 10:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT) |
|||
Revision as of 14:17, 24 October 2008
Did Angela love Arthur
I don't think it's very fair to say Angela slept with everyone under the sun when she's only admitted to one affair. Yes, she has a son no one knew about, but we still don't know the father. That still isn't "everyone under the sun." Not to mention marriage is more complicated than that, but that's another story. :)--Nonredhead 11:57, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
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)
Suspicious fan-theories!!
Someone is making awfully accurate fan theories. We may have an insider here.... Terrifried 20:11, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Arthur will explode
New theory: I think once Arthur has stolen peter's abilities, and attempt to use Ted's ability, he will explode, just like Peter Petrelli and Gabriel Gray (exposed future). Am I wrong? --Isaac Mendez 10:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)