Preamble

---

Source

With a snap of his fingers Thanos saves the universe and after a period of grieving, the ones who survived went on to live happy normal lives. The end…

Okay not really. That’s obviously not what is going to happen within the Marvel universe. We can be certain that the Avengers are going to undo all of Thanos’ hard work and put things back to the way they were before. We know this because 1) Marvel is not going to kill off that many characters within their Universe and 2) they are certainly not going to kill off the characters who are still under contract to complete other movies.

With that obviousness out of the way, I want to mention that this article does not contain spoilers for the new Marvel movie “End Game.” Instead it will discuss my interpretation of the philosophy of Thanos and his decision in the “Infinity Wars” movie to kill 50% of the population within the universe. I also want to mention that these are just my thoughts on the subject and that they aren’t based on anything that the director or writers have said about the films so there may be things that I’ve missed. Feel free to point out any discrepancies that you notice along the way. I hope you enjoy.

Brief Re-cap of Pertinent Information

---

Source

In the movie “Infinity Wars” the character of Thanos reveals his plan is to destroy half of all living creatures in the universe. At first Thanos’ actions appear to come from a place of maliciousness and greed. We kind of get a sense that Thanos is like any other villain - hungry for power and control over the universe and its people. However, it is later revealed through his actions and dialogue with other characters that his plan actually comes from a place of good intentions.

In one conversation with another character Thanos reveals that he witnessed firsthand the effects of overpopulation on his home planet. As the population on the planet grew and resources were consumed, the people descended into chaos until eventually the planet itself, along with all of its people, were completely destroyed. From that moment on Thanos made is his life’s mission to prevent that from happening anywhere else in the universe. He goes from planet to planet rounding people up and killing them in a semi-genocide like fashion. Though the act is quite gruesome, in Thanos’ mind he is doing it for the greater good. He states that he is restoring balance to the universe.

Source

At some point along his journey Thanos realizes that a better way of accomplishing his mission is to collect all of the infinity stones and harness their power in a gauntlet that he had forged. With the stones he would be able to simply snap his fingers and 50% of all life would vanish out of existence.

In the movie, Thanos succeeds in collecting all of the stones and despite the Avengers best efforts to stop him, he snaps his fingers and returns balance to the universe. As an added bonus, the power of the infinity stones allows people to die without any sort of suffering. Instead they simply vanish into the dust from which they came.

The Philosophy of Thanos

---

Source

Again, Thanos’ actions throughout the film suggest that he is not really such a bad guy. He is not acting maliciously or selfishly. Rather, he takes a sort of a utilitarian/consequentialist stance on the issue of overpopulation, believing that his actions are for the greater good. He has seen firsthand that population growth left unchecked ultimately leads to the complete destruction of all life. As such, the end result of saving life from destroying itself justifies the means of erasing people from existence.

This scenario is actually based on the classic philosophical dilemma of the runaway train, which asks the individual whether or not they would pull a lever to divert a train from killing five people if it meant that the action of doing so would result in the train killing one person. When asked the question many people answer that they would in fact pull the lever and indirectly kill one person to save five people. The second part of the scenario then asks whether or not the individual would push a person in front of a train causing their death, if it meant that it would save five other people. Many individuals tend to say that they would not kill a person directly, even if it meant that they would in turn be saving five other people.

Source

The situation of Thanos is kind of a tweaked version of the train scenario. If we think of the stones as the train then Thanos snapping his finger is a lot like pulling the level on the train tracks. Though many individuals die, life itself survives, which in Thanos' mind is far more important.

What’s interesting to me about this whole situation is that Thanos’ actions are not based on egoism or hubris and they do not come from a place of greed or vindictiveness. In fact, they are actually a completely selfless act. Thanos mentions during the infinity wars movie that he does not get enjoyment or pleasure out of killing people and that overall he is trying to relieve suffering. He is also not seeking control or power for himself. Rather, he is trying to save life. Thanos even explains to one of the Avengers that after he has accomplished his mission he will retire on his own and watch the sunset – or something to that effect.

Something else we need to consider in regards to Thanos is that he is not selective when it comes to killing. He does not pick and choose who will live and who will die. For instance, he could easily kill all of the Avengers and save all of his children and followers but instead he essentially puts everyone into the same lottery system and allows random chance to make the selection of who lives and who dies. This is huge in that it demonstrates that Thanos is not acting selfishly.

Source

Another testament to Thanos’ character is that he actually makes a huge sacrifice in order to accomplish his task. In order to obtain the soul stone he kills the one person in the universe that he loves - his daughter Gamora. For me this demonstrates that Thanos’ actions are truly a selfless act. He actually gives up the one person that he holds dear in order to complete his task, a circumstance that is all the more interesting when we compare Thanos’ actions to those of the Avengers.

Source

The Avengers appear to be taking a deontological approach to the decision to stop Thanos in that their actions are decided based on principles of morality. In their mind, all actions should be perceived in terms of “right” and “wrong.” For the Avengers, it is always wrong to kill people. However, their decision to reverse Thanos’ actions raise a lot of questions for me. Firstly, the decision to bring back those who have died essentially means that all life will eventually be destroyed. Secondly, whereas Thanos’ actions were selfless in nature, the actions of the Avengers appear to be based on the selfish act of bringing back the loved ones that they have lost. It seems that the Avengers are willing to allow all of life to be destroyed if it means their friends and loved one are returned back to them. For me this sort of calls into question the actions of all of the characters in the film and somewhat blurs the lines between what it means to be a hero and/or a villian. It would seem that these two concepts are not truths so much as they are perspectives.

Why not Just Double the Resource?

---

Source

A short while back I was shown a meme that basically suggested that Thanos could have accomplished his task of saving life by simply doubling the resources. I immediately shrugged this off as a “clever meme - bad argument” sort of situation. Allow me to explain:

The natural order of life and the history of the human species suggests that doubling the amount of resources on the planet would actually have the opposite effect of saving earths people. In fact, it is more likely that increasing the resources would actually accelerate the destruction of the planet.

Firstly, Additional resources rarely (if ever) results in a population decrease. When a new food source is added to an ecosystem or a nutrient supply increases in nature the population of a species tends to increase along with it. We can see this in bacteria, insects, rodents and even people. For instance, during the agricultural revolution the population of the human species expanded rapidly with the increased supply of nutrients. Increased resources also tends to result in healthier individuals, lower rates of mortality and extended life expectancy as demonstrated by the industrial revolution. So, rather than decreasing the population, this would more likely result in people having more children. It would also likely lead to people living longer and dying less frequently. As such, increasing the planets resources would likely accelerate the destruction of the planet by increasing the population which would also increase things like pollution, the effects of global warming and even crime and war which are often based on overcrowding and greed.

Source

Secondly, if the issue of over population could be solved with more resources, then there actually wouldn’t be a problem to begin with. Currently in the world today, we have more than enough resources for everyone on the planet to not only survive but also to thrive. Yet, many people in the world go without the basic necessities. We see this not only is a comparison between developed and developing nations, but also within each of these nations themselves. Within any society, there are those with more resources then they require and those who are struggling to obtain the resources that they need to survive. What this tells us is that the issue is not with the quantity of resources in existence, but rather in the distribution of them.

Lastly, increasing the amount of resources on the planet does not solve the issue of greed and selfishness - traits that are common among any living species. For instance, things like war would still be rampant because war tends to be more so about control of a resource then a need for it. So again, since the issue lies with the distribution of resources opposed to the quantity of them, increasing a planets resources would likely have very little long term effect on the survival of life overall.

Conclusion

---

Source

At this point I feel that I should mention that I do not personally agree or condone killing people for the greater good. I also do not necessarily believe that Thanos’ thinking is correct. Killing half of the population wouldn’t necessarily solve the issue of overpopulation for the long term. Though it would give us more time to correct some of the issues that we see in society today, it would most likely just prolong the inevitable. Our population would inevitably continue to grow until it eventually reached the levels that we see today and beyond.

Overall, for me the philosophy of Thanos simply raises a lot of questions about the survival of our planet and sort of blur the lines between good and evil. It demonstrates that complex situations never have simple answers and that there is often many variables to consider in any given situation. Overall, situations and circumstances can be perceived in many different ways and there is no way of knowing with certainty which course of action is better overall. When tackling any problem that we face, whether it be global warming or over population, deciding on how to proceed and what course of actions we need to take really comes down to our own beliefs and value systems and the lens in which we view our circumstances.

Thanks for Reading