Thanos is definitely evil. Even if he his vision isn’t evil by your definition(and I’d argue that ending people’s lives against their will is a form of slavery), his journey to amass enough power to achieve his vision was utterly psychopathic. Psychologists consider psychopaths as broken individuals in regards to society, and so they should be considered evil.

I was expecting comic panels and was disappointed.

I mention that he is evil insofar as his killing is indiscriminate. So I don't say that he isn't evil. I say that his evil is paltry because he thinks he is doing the right thing and is portrayed as a somewhat relatable character, and that the fundament of his evil, killing, is something that good guys do as well.

The villain that I would say was hardly evil was Ego. I don't mention it in the essay, but he is somewhat evil because he doesn't ask people if they want to be fixed. But his evil is also paltry, because he basically just wants to fix people.

But these two just pale in comparison with Darkseid because he is absolutely unrelatable and the portrayal of his slavery is to turn the hero of the series evil.

So they are all three evil. Ego just barely. Thanos moreso. But Darkseid absolutely. And the difference is in the application of libertarianism.

The "MAD" Titan in the comics did it to impress Death. Deadpool's gf.

Ok, he is not evil, he is just dumb af.

I don't think this makes a whole lot of sense, and is strangely unrelated to the title headline link?

Cool read but I think saying "One ugly bad guy who wants to basically get rid of the bad guys" in reference to Thanos is kind of... weird.

Does that mean that, in the view of the author, the indiscriminately killed people from the snap were bad guys because of Thanos' concept of thinning the heard? like them simply existing and consuming resources made them bad?

Huge difference between removing 'bad people', as mentioned earlier in the article, and removing a random number of people for a perceived greater good.

That's just one of the wrong suppositions. Thanos's snap was completely random and indiscriminate, "perfectly balanced, as all things should be." He was enacting at the cosmic level what he was doing world by world, dividing into two groups, the living and the dead.

Based off your article, I feel like you have a disconnect between characterization and the banality of evil.

Just because a character is relatable doesn't make their evil paltry. Thanos is evil and his actions are in no way paltry. We understand why he's doing it, and it seems reasonable and he can justify it. We understand that justification, but the result and method are undoubtedly evil. Which makes his actions even scarier because he's thought it through and done the calculus.

I am bringing up the Nazis, sorry, but they provide the best analog to real life and thanos. The nazi's had strong justification for their genocide, they were making the world a better place, like Thanos. Individual Nazi's can be relatable, like its recorded that the Nazi's were "normal" and relatable at a personal level. But committed horrendous crimes. Can you say that the Holocaust was paltry, because we can relate to those that perpetrated it? Because from the view of the Nazi's their actions were justifiable? That they had a "good" reason to kill jews? Hell no.

Another example is Ed Kemper, he was extremely well liked, had a good "character," too him, and made friends with guards and cops. He also had a justification for his actions. Yet was his evil paltry?

Also, you seem to be making an ends justify the means argument with Thanos, which....eh? You want to go down that road?

Thanos' plan is downright evil. You take any system, deontology, utilitariasm, virtue ethics, etc. He's evil, not just his "indiscriminate killing," but all his actions to get to his goal of mass genocide for the "greater good"

[deleted]

There's a cogent point in there, relevant by reasonable standards, but it definitely falls afoul of the "either say something or stop talking" rule.

The logic here is flawed. Nazis are NOT relatable because killing jews doesn't make the world "better".

Explain how Nazism and master race ideology makes the world a better place.

[deleted]

I'm glad we agree that the logic of the nazi's was flawed.

I was making an analogy and representing what Nazi's thought, I was not advocating for it. Reading comprehension is important you know?

Please read: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt. Then you will understand what I am trying to do. Maybe.

Have you read the comics? Nothing neolib there. He was literally trying to impress a deity. It was not because he believed in anything or because he had any political goals, opinions or intentions.

The movies were the moment when I genuinely gave up on them because to this day not a single character has called out the ridiculousness of killing poor people because of the negative consequences of capitalism (or whatever disbalanced power dynamic is present in the other worlds where there were the same issues at late-stage capitalism).

I have to admit, I don't see the movies as neo-lib, because that would imply an attempt at a political analysis or understanding. Which there isn't. It was even more obvious in the Falcon and the Winter soldier.

[deleted]

I am saying it's done so poorly, it's not even neolib.

[deleted]

I think one of the biggest problems in this treatment are the contradicting suppositions that are not squared then subsequently used as parameters for defining "absolute evil". Forget about who's the biggest, baddest, evilest comic book villain.

First there is the definition of good and evil which is distilled down to that which WORKS and that which is BROKEN. That's fine and for the sake of discussion I can conditionally accept that definition. However, where the argument begins to collapse is the silent establishment of free will as an unassailable virtue and representation of good (or that which WORKS) and subsequently establishing philosophical libertarianism as the representation of freedom. That is, "there is no greater evil than slavery".

The problem is that free will is neither the agent of good nor the agent of evil. It falls in the realm of the kalon/kakon polarity and we're now back to moral relativism as the treatment suggests is inadequate for defining good and evil; i.e. we're no longer talking in terms of what WORKS and what is BROKEN. At this point the argument for what comic book villain is absolute evil is no longer working within the parameters established from the outset.

I will try to abbreviate this post by including my initial criticism of philosophical libertarianism as the representation of freedom by stating that it falls apart in practice because that which pleases me but does not please you ultimately results in might makes right and the subsequent denial of freedom to those with less power.

>Psychologists consider psychopaths as broken individuals in regards to society, and so they should be considered evil.

I'm sorry, but did you just say broken people are evil?

It was Nazi ideology that exterminating what they saw as dangerous and disgusting people would be improving the world. It was very well propagandized into popular thought, and antisemitic views were held by many worldwide at the time. The Nuremberg Trials are very eye opening because you see that most everyone tried was normal, sane, and reasonable, but many had committed atrocities beyond our imagination. The ideology is obviously flawed from our modern standpoint, but it serves as a warning that regular and otherwise moral people can be susceptible to dangerous views.

[deleted]

His Thanoscopter capers weren't enough, so he had to really step up his game

He said psychopaths are broken in way that makes them dangerous to society and that psychopaths are considered evil. He didn't say all broken people are evil.

I'm inclined to disagree. The essay finds a need to emphasize the biggest baddie and call that evil, but much evil is done through the "banality of evil", or through those who are misguided and think they're on the side of the good. Being broken can lead to evil, but sometimes the utmost ordinariness or in fact a rage at the broken can lead to evil.

Batman and The Joker: both broken, and then the interest becomes in dramatizing WHY only The Joker is evil

Marvel's Ultron is evil, and his evil stems from his rage at the evil inherent in humanity, that humans are broken, and he thinks he is superior to that. Vision, in contrast, is forgiving of brokenness.

Thanos's first words (aside from earlier cameos) are: "I know what it's like to lose." Complexity makes a better villain. Too extreme villainy doesn't have as much to teach us. There's nothing for us to identify with and say: well, if I mis-step, I could end up like that. Marvel's tagline for Spiderman is "with great power comes great responsibility", and canonically Spiderman learned that lesson from the death of his Uncle Ben when he sat on the sidelines. Marvel characters can move back and forth between hero and villain, like Loki and Wanda.

I don't think freedom and libertarianism have ever been central comic book concerns. Superman seems somewhat boring, but that's because he's a fantasy fulfillment, what if Good always had the upper hand, what if we never had to ask if God had abandoned us (Kal El means "voice of God".)

Total good and total bad are not guides for us in our lives here on Earth, they are escapist fantasy, like libertarianism.

But not everyone suffering from psychopathy (or sociopathy) does any more evil things than the average neurotypical. Dangerous people are dangerous, but psychopathy =/= dangerous.

All mental disorders, by definition, are conditions that cause people to be unable to function in normal society without duress unless treated. Thats why they are disorders.

This is a random jumble of thoughts which are so disorganized and poorly composed that the author seems to endorse mass murder, equates Judeo-Christian morality as being the same as an agenda of mass murder, and is rife with run on paragraphs.
seemingly, the author is unfamiliar with the works of the following themes:

Nietzsche, Hobbes, Rousseau, and skips the mention of any libertarian ideas. In fact, the philosophical arguments presented for libertarianism gets a straw man treatment.

​

This is just about as far as one can get from an "academic treatment of villainy" and also just about as far as you can get from a real discussion of philosophy or the values inherent in pop culture.

Thanos is evil.

If he had the power to kill half of all living creatures in the universe to reduce the impact on resources, he also had the power to double the resources.

He didn't need to kill everyone.

Prick.

It wasn’t completely random because he wanted to spare Tony

No, philosophical libertarianism is the bad guy. It’s not my definition of free will.

True, but the difference between half of all life in the universe and half of all life in the universe minus one life is basically half the life in the universe.

Wait, I missed that in Infinity War or you're incorrect.

When Stark and Thanos have their final conversation he states "I hope they remember you". This was a criticism of Stark's (and the Avengers) attempt stop inevitability (or destiny) which Thanos believed he embodied. It was a statement that Thanos believed that all survivors of The Snap would remember Stark's futility.

Just as Thanos is about to then deliver a coup de grâce Dr. Strange barters the Time Stone under the condition that Thanos doesn't outright kill him. This is not the same as excluding Stark from The Snap. For all Thanos knew, Stark had a 50% chance of being dusted anyway. Dr. Strange, on the other hand, had the benefit of knowing that Stark was destined to survive The Snap.

There is nothing indicating that Thanos made any exceptions in the The Snap. Indeed, it would be antithetical for him to make any exception when his whole schtick was balance.

I'm open to correction in this regard if there is some evidence contained within the films that prove an exception.

I agree; I believe you conclude it to be "[c]haos". But it seems that where Dardseid is evaluated for his evil exercise of agency more weight is given to free will (i.e. freedom) as an unassailable virtue not to be violated because slavery is bad. That is, Darkseid's agency is bad because it violates good agency. Thus we're back to a relativistic critique of good and evil which countermands the established definition of WORKS vs. BROKEN.

So what are your definitions of free will and what constitutes slavery?

Because when I read the following it seems to suggest that the denial of agency (i.e. free will) is the measure of true evil. I can't think of anything more obstructive to my agency than being denied my existence a la The Snap.

>If you ask me, there is no greater evil than slavery, and there is no more perfect presentation of the evil of slavery than the corruption of the most powerful icon of good in superhero history into a destroyer of worlds.

Now do communism and progressivism as villains because that would be more true to life. It would make a great horror comic. You could have a government entity similar to the CCP that steals organs from prisoners of conscience and locks people up in concentration camps where they are tortured because of their religious beliefs.

>Dear reader, nobody gives a whit about whether you like ice cream or
not. We care about what works and doesn’t work. Everyone has to agree on
that. What works can be around in some way. What doesn’t work is going
to have to be gotten rid of, no matter who you are or where or when you
live.

If I understand the article correctly, that is what he is saying. The basis of his argument defines evil in some greek root or something.

I didn’t say Thanos thought it was indiscriminate. I said it was portrayed as being indiscriminate. I did add your quote of Thanos to the essay, though, to clarify that Thanos certainly thought it was not indiscriminate.

Interesting, as the Messiah said “I hope they remember you” when Satan fell.

What would you want said that wasn’t said?

So what you’re saying is that the perfect state of being is you being in a universe where you are being forced to do what you don’t want to do?

Saying the snap denies you existence assumes the non-existence of the afterlife. So making the snap an act of supreme evil is fundamentally an atheistic position. I would agree that for atheists, Thanos’ ranking as a bad guy goes up a number of notches.

Whats interesting, though, is the concept of the second death. That after we die here, some people will also at some point cease to exist from the afterlife. But the assumption is that those who suffer the second death are truly evil. So, if you suffer the second death, it’s because you freely choose to enslave and cause loss.

The destroyer must be destroyed.

So sure, Satan is going to say that his removal from reality is evil. Darkseid is going to say that his destruction is a bad thing.

Let's clarify positions:

• Your position is that Thanos wasn't indiscriminate.
• u/yungyakitz was arguing that your claim that Thanos only killed bads guys, thus not being indiscriminate, is not supported by the source material. That is, he was indiscriminate with The Snap, "good" and "bad" people were dusted alike.
• My reply is an acknowledgement of agreement with u/yungyakitz, i.e. the supposition that Thanos was not discriminate, as present in your treatment, is wrong. I then elaborate that being indiscriminate (with regard to The Snap) would be critical to Thanos by virtue of his pathology.

I appreciate your most recent clarification of your position, but I stand by the position that The Snap was indiscriminate by necessity.

I don’t take a position on Thanos here. One difference between Thanos and the Messiah is that Thanos is not the representation of an omniscient God. All I say is that Thanos thinks he is helping out, but his snap is portrayed by the filmmakers as being indiscriminate, and therefore mass murder.

Marvel assumes atheism here. It’s an atheistic movie designed to appeal to atheists, and from that perspective Thanos makes a pretty decent bad guy.

But as I mention in the essay, Messiah will come and some people are gonna get killed. But in that context, they’re only going to get killed on this earth. And as for the ultimate fate of all beings, only the truly evil will be gotten rid of. And TBH, I have a theory that the evil ones may leave reality voluntarily. Exercising their free will.

This will happen around the year 3,000. Hence, “I love you 3,000.”

Satan will have three choices.

1 - kneel before the king. 2 - go back into the void. 3 - merge with infinity.

I think he will choose to merge with infinity and be gone.

And, we will remember what he did when he was here, and we will freely choose not to walk in his footsteps.

What's your source of that quote? What would the context be?

I can’t name the source. Incommunicable personal experience. Disregard it if you want. And it’s not a word for word quote. A different language was used and the concept of hope was understood with more depth than Thanos was referring to. It may have been more of a “I know that you will be remembered” or “the purpose of your destruction is to be remembered.”

But you’re right. I’m sorry, but I cannot source this for you, so feel free to disregard.

Thanos removed half of everything though. He also removed half of all animal and plant resources. It was an idiotic concept.

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that that is "what [I am] saying".

And shoehorning in the concept of the afterlife at this point shifts the argument of defining so-called "true evil" or "true villain[y]" as per your declaration that there is no greater evil than slavery. Again, this regresses to moral relativism, which your treatment eschewed. And it still doesn't absolve Thanos, Ego, or any genocidal figure from reality of their evil; in your treatment you seem to apologize (i.e. defend) Thanos and Ego:

>So we have three villains. One ugly bad guy who basically wants to get rid of bad guys^(1). One charismatic actor representing a beautiful world who wants to fix broken people^(2). And one horrific volcanic rock in humanioid form who turns the purest and most powerful superhero in human history into an enslaved weapon of mass destruction.

Your latest conclusion that Thanos gets ranked higher because there is no afterlife exposes the horrific philosophy that if there is an afterlife then genocide becomes more justifiable. Let God sort them out, amiright?

^(1)Thanos's Snap was indiscriminate, it affected the good and the evil alike.

^(2)Ego wasn't fixing anything. In fact, by your standard he was trying to enslave (and thereby eradicate) all beings across the entire universe via the Expansion.

No, Thanos is ranked higher than Ego because loss is worse than repair.

Slavery as evil does not regress to moral relativism. Ask anyone. Existence within a reality where one is forced to do what they don’t want to do is objectively worse than a reality where everyone can do what they want to do. Freedom is objectively prefereable for all people, and, if libertarianism is false, and reality is determined by perfection, then it is possible, and the ideal function of the system, and therefore not broken, so it is good.

Correct. Everyone dies. Everyone goes to God. So then say, the destruction of the Amalekites in the book of Samuel, while not fun, is more palatable. It’s a sad and tragic effect of this godless world, but any innocent Amalekites are okay now.

So this is why, to the theist, Thanos just ain’t that bad. Killing just isn’t as bad as enslaving.

Luke and Han killed zillions of Storm Troopers. Leonidas and the Spartans killed zillions of Persians. In the Revolutionary War, the Brits killed tons of Americans. Americans killed tons of Brits. None of this is fun. “Thou shalt not kill.”

But those Storm Troopers, Persians, Brits, and Amalekites are okay now.

I think there are four or five reasonably-sized sentences worth of insight there, and I would have been delighted to read those four or five sentences. I resent being sent on a scavenger hunt to find that insight scattered across pages and pages of filler and fluff.

What to you is filler is somebody else’s insight.

I'm pretty sure there are whole pages that are both redundant and devoid of content. Just words for words' sake. Like, I don't mean to insult you as the author. I was having a side conversation with someone else who thought your paper wasn't even connected to your thesis, and I said, essentially, "there's some content there, but you've really got to hunt for it." But no, I don't think there are reasonable consumers of philosophy who would have their knowledge or insight positively added to by most of the sentences in that paper.

First, I’m not insulted. I do not consider myself great, but I’ll say that 99% of the population thinks the Bible is crap that they don’t understand, so I’ve been aware for a while most people aren’t going to get me. I’ve found my biggest sin is expecting people to read at all. Anymore, if it ain’t on TikTok, it ain’t going viral.

Second, reasonable consumers of philosophy were only part of the intended audience. Concerned parents, superhero fans, movie critics, lay religious people, lots of folks. Actually, I wrote it kinda hoping it would be read by some producers at Warner Media and originally posted it on Superhero boards. It didn’t take root as well as it did here.

It’s also a part of a larger continuity of blog posts on my blog that are heavily theological. Basically defining why Satan hates God so much: he is a libertarian who thinks nothing determines the universe.

So as I said, what to you is filler is someone else’s insight.

Okay. That's fair. I will say that many of the other categories you lost will be predominated by people unwilling to scan through that much nuance. This is a dilemma I know well: I write curricula for proof-based math modules, and the balance between showing enough steps not to lose anyone and not so many that even otherwise enthusiastic students feel their eyes glaze over is a difficult optimization problem. I only meant that I might have struck a different point on that spectrum in service of that balance.

I get that. Also, I’m not a math guy. I’m an author. I’m sure my clever alliteration of the cafes of carracas and Boulevards of Bangkok was one of your wastes of space.

I don't think the Snap affected much non-sapient animals and plants. When The Blip happens there's no mention of (what used to be) 50% of the animals and plants reappearing all over Earth.

In the movie it shows animals and plants being eliminated