4671 Rue Berri
**\* \* Shoes-Off Venue \* \*** This venue requires that you remove your outdoor footwear on arrival. **\* \* Feel free to bring food or drinks \* \*** **\* \* Participation is optional - you can join us to speak or to listen \* \*** The Avengers films, particularly *Infinity War* and *Endgame*, revolve around a deceptively simple philosophical question: can mass suffering be morally justified if it leads to a better overall outcome? Thanos’s Snap is framed as a solution to scarcity—by erasing half of all life, he claims to preserve balance and prevent universal collapse. This argument closely resembles utilitarian ethics, most famously associated with philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, where actions are judged by their consequences rather than their intentions. If fewer beings suffer in the long run, then extreme actions in the present might appear morally defensible. The problem, of course, is that Thanos never asks anyone if they agree. This raises a second, equally important issue: consent and moral authority. Even if Thanos’s calculations were correct, what gives him the right to decide who lives and who dies? From a deontological perspective, particularly Kantian ethics, the Snap is indefensible because it treats individuals as mere means to an end rather than as ends in themselves. People are not killed for what they’ve done, but for what they represent statistically. The randomness of the Snap only emphasizes this violation: fairness through chance does not equate to justice. The films also engage with questions of moral luck and responsibility. Thanos believes himself burdened with a terrible but necessary task, framing his actions as self-sacrificial rather than tyrannical. Yet the Avengers, especially characters like Tony Stark and Captain America, reject the idea that inevitability excuses atrocity. Their resistance suggests a belief that moral responsibility persists even in desperate circumstances. Just because a problem is real
Sunday, September 13 · 6:00 PM