enchantedbyhiddles:

@erinthevampire
replied to your post “Question about the after credit scene of Thor: Ragnarok…[[MOR] The…”

NO>>I REFUSE TO LISTEN TO THIS

I take an ethic course this semester and we had an interesting first lesson about different schools of ethics.

Kantian ethics, that are prevalent in Europe, value intention most. A person is good, when they had good intentions and do something for the right reasons, even if the outcome is horrible.

Consequentialist ethics are prevalent in anglophile (especially US) countries. There the intentions don’t matter at all and only the outcome of an action determines if a person acted in an ethically good way or not.

Explains a lot why people might determine if a person (in this case Thor) is acting good or bad.

OK, I have a lot to say about the original meta post… but the upshot is that I strongly disagree. One of many reasons being that in the MCU, Thor is pretty consistently the representative of Kantian/deontological (i.e., rule-based) ethics, while Odin and Loki lean more consequentialist. (P.S., on Earth I see Steve and Tony representing a similar contrast.) I always read “I’d rather be a good man than a great king” as “I’d rather keep my conscience clean than have to make decisions that trade lives for more lives.”

Now, it may be that now that Thor has accepted the mantle of kingship, he’s converted to consequentialism. But handing Loki over to Thanos is the kind of move that’s standardly used as an argument against consequentialism (or specifically utilitarianism). If Thor encountered Thanos or even heard of him on his travels, he must know how ruthless and cruel he is. He would know, or should be able to guess, what kind of horrific torture he would be condemning Loki to. Is that worth it for the mere possibility of protecting Asgard and Earth? Why should he trust Thanos to keep, or even make, a promise to leave them alone if Loki is turned over to him?