He could play the same kind of role for Carol that he played for Eleanor, a moral conscience and tutor. I've said before that I'd love it if Carol could James Kirk the Hive - basically, do what he would do to crazy computers, and talk it into destroying itself. But man, Chidi... he could wrap it up in so many logic bombs that well, we might have one good episode or two, and the series would be over. Hmm... Come to think of it, maybe it's a good thing that it's Carol rather than Chidi.
Let’s not forget, it was in a totally preventable way. He also 100% could’ve handled better the meeting with Carol. He could’ve waited another day to do his experiment. Etc etc
In this episode in particular Carol came across pretty self absorbed.
He traveled nine thousand miles, acted pretty much exactly the way she was acting in the first two episodes and she was so hesitant to give him any information. She doesn't think he ought to know what the other survivors are doing. And on top of that she only comes around on saving the world when she realizes it will affect her personally.
Nah, Diabate is just rationalizing what he knows to be wrong and Laxmi is just in denial about her son stll totally being a kid and not some leviathan of humanity corrupted by an alien virus
In defense of Carol she's had literally the whole world working her psychologically in the form of her fantasy dream woman for weeks. Then this somewhat rude but principled man arrives and wants her to help him take it all away. Of course she's going to be reluctant.
Had he showed up during her isolation (or any point prior) they would have gone right to work. Yes, Carol's realization that they are still working to turn her is a selfish motive, but remember that for Carol, everyone else in the world besides Manousos is okay with this situation. They're being selfish, so perhaps she felt entitled to a little selfishness too. Why is she saving the world? Just for this one asshole, vs. keeping the status quo with her dream girl?
It's not shocking where her head was at until she understood the hive's manipulation. Also, I don't think she'll fall into that trap again. If she ever doubts her conviction, I could see her pressing Zosia about her past self a bit more. She was afraid to even ask the gender of her previous partner. I could see her reapproaching that topic if she wants to convince herself to move on. She might get plurb-Zosia to admit that the real Zosia would not want a relationship with Carol at all.
Zosia also cleverly(?) primed Carol to think Manousos was dangerous. The “we don’t THINK he would hurt you…” Of course she was nervous af to get into the back of his ambulansia.
Yep. And Carol’s attitude toward the joined has clearly changed after having more conversations with them. She started out insisting they were as good as dead, and now she understands/says that they’re still human, only changed.
True, but why even mention at all that Manousos was capable of doing harm to anyone unless the hive was trying to subtly make carol nervous/leery of him and preemptively undermine their potential alliance (remember that carol now has affection for zosia and feels protective of her)
“Only in the sense that he seems to see us as a threat to his safety.” would also be accurate and reflect more on their level of knowledge & brain power if they were talking about him the way they would anyone else.
Of course it was on me. I was highlighting the fact that it could leave room for doubt in Carol’s mind.
The reason I put a question mark after “cleverly” is because I don’t know if it was intentional to make her think he could hurt her. But either way, I think it put the thought there, and it’s why she’s extremely cagey with him off the bat.
That seemed like a truthful warning though? The first thing Manousos does when waking up in hospital after being saved is to literally hold a scalpel to the plurb doctor’s neck. He’s clearly capable of violence.
Not to mention the cult tactics employed by Them, intentional or not. Break their rules, and lose contact with literally everyone. No chance of re-entry into broader society, because there is none.
Also, it shows the downside of Manousos’ distrust and stubbornness. If he’d just accepted the flight to Albuquerque, we would have arrived soon after she made the first tape and she would have been ready to help him.
Exactly. It proves that his steadfast idealism isn't actually conducive to saving the world. You've got to be more flexible and pragmatic in that kind of situation.
We also saw him become more flexible after getting stonewalled by Carol. He realized that, ironically, the hive would be more willing to cooperate in their own defeat than Carol at that moment.
He also would have died due to his stubbornness having helped no one. Definitely a lesson in using the tools on hand and not blindly sticking to ideals.
The finale was really annoying to me for this reason. Just dragged all that shit out for essentially nothing to happen. Carol and Manousos end up working together anyway they just wasted our time with shitty writing to make this show even slower
Yeah, Carol tends to be selfish, elitist, very judgmental, and pretty biased. If Manousos looked like Zosia, I think she has a completely different response.
in carol's defence: the only reason his journey was remotely arduous was because of a self imposed rule he set. he could have just asked them to fly him there (they offered!), and from carol's perspective, why wouldn't he do that?
by that point carol had already gone to spain for an equally pointless conversation with the other individuals. she could have crossed the atlantic in a rowboat alone instead of getting a ride in a plane, but why would any of the other individuals care if she made the journey harder on herself?
was she being unreasonable? yeah maybe. but she got on-board in the end so i dont really mind
She's been coming across as extremely self absorbed since the start of the show. I don't get how half of this subreddit refused to acknowledge that, excusing it with trauma.
Carol was put through psychological warfare deemed literally a crime by international agreements because it's so punitive. She has 7 billion manipulators playing on her day and night. It's not as simple as "Carol is self absorbed"
I don’t blame her for not trusting him in the beginning. A strange man shows up in an ambulance with a machete at his hip? He’s lucky she left her house.
She was also protecting her relationship with Zosia/The Hive by withholding information. At this point, Carol has all but "joined" with the hive until the illusion shatters. Upon Mano's arrival, Carol was aware of her hypocrisy, but craved the connection she had with Helen so deeply that it compromised her judgement.
I guarantee you Manaosus would be insufferable in real life though. Its beyond morals to not be ok with looting when you are trying to save the world. Its stupidity and immoral to not use all resources at your disposal to restore the world.
I think they are playing with that image a lot. What I also noticed in one of the earlier episodes, was also that she represents the international stereotype about americans, that they are a bit ignorant when it comes to the rest of the world. At one point she was even having a monologue about "freedom" with the US flag in the background on the airplane, being ignorant to what the others even experience. Then later "they" even told her, the other survivors where not happy about being excluded from being invited in the first place, only because they dont speak english.
Diabate doesn't come across as an entitled elitist he comes across as a rational guy accepting the way the apocalypse happened and recognizes his own powerlessness to do anything meaningful
I mean. They all consent to him using the bodies of those individuals, including, presumably, whatever is left of the persons themselves. I think it’s an interesting ethical question and imagine it would at best be a really empty endeavor after awhile, but don’t see it as rape exactly because fundamentally, and in their eyes, there is no lack of consent. They have said over and over they WANT to make these people happy, not that they have to (which is why they can leave).
You could say that Carol killing millions was unintentional and due to ignorance, but Diabate raping people is pretty damn intentional and he is shown to be articulate and intellectually capable of understanding what he is doing, he seems to just not care (Carol is also raping Zosia).
The people that the hive mind are using to please Diabate would not be able to consent to the use. The fact that I must say "use" it is a clear indicator that these people, if their minds are still whole, are not willing participants.
People did not join the hive mind of their own free will (as in many other fictional works), the Joining was imposed on them. Anything they are used to do after that can not in any moral framework, be called consent.
I think they would say “we don’t see it that way”. They consider themselves to be a fully formed being/colonial organism with the ability to make decisions (they are just collective decisions) and their own morals. I’m not saying having sex with them is great by any stretch, but I think they genuinely want to do it because it makes him /Carol happy.
The individuals making up the colony can not consent.
I think we are talking about different things.
I agree that the Overmind wishes to please all the uninfected. It can not lie, and it will tell you truthfully that it is aiming to please the 13 (12 now).
My point is, the people that make up the bodies, they did not consent to: being part of the hivemind in the first place, nor to being used for whatever purposes the hivemind has, nor to please the uninfected.
Thank you. She also was shown to be verbally abusive and obtuse to EVERYONE in the show: helen, the plurbs, the other uninfected, and even her save the world twin from Paraguay
They all consent to him using the bodies of those individuals, including, presumably, whatever is left of the persons themselves.
It can't consent to that. It's not the owner of that individuals body. It's silly to think that it is a collective and that it can speak for the individuals it controls. The beliefs of this collective are not what majority of humans believe.
Carol did not kill millions of people, she had an entirely rational emotional reaction that, through no fault of her own and entirely the fault of the invading force, caused mass death. It isn’t her fault that getting pissed off affects them so badly, and I think it’s kinda fucked to pin that on her.
You could say that Carol killing millions was unintentional and due to ignorance, but Diabate raping people is pretty damn intentional and he is shown to be articulate and intellectually capable of understanding what he is doing, he seems to just not care.
The guy who immediately took control of airforce 1 and had portraits of himself hung up in a luxurious hotel doesn't strike you as being an entitled elitist? He is a blatant hedonist who clearly thinks he deserves to have everything he wants.
His principles and morality are somewhat flawed though, which I think more people should consider. He admitted that he was more than willing to sacrifice the life and bodies of those that have joined in order to destroy Them.
"If we can't fix Them, They are better off dead."
He’s willing to take a life if he deems it necessary but he won’t take gas from an abandon car without paying, or squat in an empty house… Every human body has become a vessel for the collective, so when he threatens to leave Them dead, he’s also threatening to destroy any chance for that individual to return. In a way, his mindset mirrors the nature of the hive. They are both extremely persistent with clearly defined morals, but their approach to live by those morals is absurdist.
He won’t take things for free but is willing to take a life. They won’t pick an apple even if they starve.
Sometimes? That's who she is. She had a whole group of people kissing her ass at the beginning. She did that snooty look towards the airport book stack. Her books had to be on top.
She's not independent and incredibly easy to appease, just pretend to adore her.
Yess I feel like Manousos is who Carol thinks she is in a lot of ways, early on she is screaming about being self sufficient and yet she expects the supermarket to magically be stocked for her.
But in Her I felt that guy crashing out was more valid. With carol she should’ve realised that she’s the same as the other 12 but her desperation for love made her blind
The maximal pacifism of the “weirdos” has already had plenty of holes poked through it.
You can’t pick an apple, even though the tree “wants” you to eat the apple? That the point of an apple is to be eaten, in order to spread more life.
Releasing captive animals when that certainly means avoidable struggle and death for many of them.
Not to mention the mass homicide that was the initial invasion.
The aliens must have some guiding logic behind such a blunt and ultimately highly inefficient and destructive pacifism.
Of course it is like the nature of a virus, which lives by brutal, simple rules of propagation that can end up destroying the very media and methods they rely on.
It’s kinda like exceptionally virulent viruses. They end up fizzling out because they make you too sick too fast to end up spreading to many people. Just an unintended byproduct of their coding
I just assumed the inability to "harm" may be more a replication strategy than anything. Their biological imperative is to spread, so forcing the "host" population out of sustainability could just be part of the life cycle. Once the population starts to contract because of artificial scarcity, it pivots from preserving individual bodies to throwing all its remaining resources into building a means to broadcast the signal into space.
Releasing the animals has to do with their “your life is your own” policy. They won’t interfere with nature. Apple trees need animals to eat their apples and spread their seeds, and they won’t prevent that from happening. But they aren’t going to involve themselves in the process either.
Just because we are human we should value human life more? Where does this principle extend to? Should I value American lives more then other nationalities? My religion? My gender?
It might be "the way it is" but to say it's "rational?" Why? Make the argument and make it non-arbitrary.
Vegans exist as an offshoot of this argument. They value non-human life much much more than most people to the point they won't eat even honey or milk despite it not harming/killing animals because they don't even want to "exploit" any. I'm closer to a carnivore than a vegan and I cannot dispute their moral and ethical arguments. I just keep eating meat and animal products because I'm selfish and enjoy the taste. What I won't do is pretend I believe I'm somehow objectively justified in doing so.
I can’t fathom how this could be a genuine question. You would extend the line at humans your own species just like how every other species stick to their own kind. You don’t see chimps valuing a honeybee’s life over a fellow chimp now do you.
But as all things considered you don’t go around killing living things unless its necessary for your survival whether it be animals or plants or a fucking bullet Ant that has crawled its way into your short.
Of course I personally value human lives, but we aren't objectively more important or special than ants. Our existence means nothing to the universe, and we came into being the exact same way that ants did. Neither of us are more deserving of life than the other.
Vegans value different animals differently, otherwise they wouldn't drive a care like everyone else and crush hundreds of bugs on their windshield.
Also yes we tend to get more affectionate about people closer to us, that's human nature, first your family then friends etc. not sure how both of these are even discussion points these days.
Just because we are human we should value human life more?
Well, maybe not more, but differently. In the real world you can argue we have different moral obligations to ants and humans. Of course in the real world we don't avoid killing ants, and sometimes kill them in great number intentionally.
The differing moral obligation comes from differing levels of sentience and likely differing ability to experience suffering. Even so we frown on torturing ants needlessly.
Should I value American lives more then other nationalities?
Kinda feels like a very "reddit' question that isn't related.
Kinda feels like a very "reddit' question that isn't related.
Of course it's related.
People haven't made good arguments for why I should value human life more. The people responding to me are basically just saying "yes" without any reasoning whatsoever.
If I should value human life more just because I'm human, which at least one person said I should. Then why shouldn't that logic extend out? Why shouldn't I value Americans more because I'm American? This is hardly purely hypothetical. Plenty of Americans think this way and plenty of people in other countries about their own. So too for their religion. That's why all those wars over silly superstitions happen at all. Your fellow believers deserve more than other non-believers.
So why does humans matter more and that's the correct way to think because you're human not turn into Americans matter more and that's the correct way to think because you're American. Reason it out.
Devil's Advocate: Isn't "loving all living beings equally" the logical extreme of God loving all humans equally? Because there are some people who dislike the notion that God loves bad people just as much as them.
In fact, it was brought up later in this episode when Carol was upset that Zosia/they loved Manousos as much as she/they loved her. Maybe it was just a coincidence that the same core subject was broached twice in the same episode under competing perspectives. To me, it was too coincidental.
Don't be jealous Carol: Just because they love Manousos equally as much doesn't mean they love you less. Don't be jealous Manousos: Just because they love a ants equally as much, doesn't mean they love humans less.
You think just stating a position because you say so is enough. Thankfully we do not live most of life this way. Imagine if everyone walked around in life saying "because I said so" as the backstop for their positions. What a terrible world.
Every argument is arbitrary. Opinions and morality are not objective, by definition.
But they're not all crested equal. Otherwise fascism is just as valid as democracy. All opinions on how governments should operate. Both just arbitrary.
Shocking that so many intelligent people throughout history wrestled with moral philosophy and trying to justify their behaviors and opinions rather than just taking your superior approach of "it's this way because I said so!"
Based as fuck lmao
'Yes'
Yes indeed. I'm all for ants, they're cool as fuck, but in no way does an animal have the same value as a human life, except cats and dogs.
You were SO close, but alas, wrong... cats and dogs do not have the same value as a human, and they are NOT replacement children which makes people THINK that in the first place.
This is what happens when you don't really have any arguments and just go on vibes. You're like "well I vibe with cats and dogs so they're in too" and someone else comes in and says "nah not for me."
And it just comes down to "because I said so."
Not exactly a great foundation for your moral philosophy.
Oh nah cats and dogs as replacement kids is cringe, those people need help, they're still chill as fuck tho and I can think of a few people who I'd value less than some husky down the road.
Well animals are killed for milk. Like veal is male calves from the dairy industry. They only keep female cows. And cows are killed after a few years when they produce less milk.
Like, obviously vegans don't actually see the life of an ant as being worth more than a humans, but you're supposed to adopt a anti-speciest attitude that, whilst not necessarily elevating the position of the ant above that of humans, does pose the question of "why do I have any more right to life than an ant?". It's true that, at an individual level, we are as equally disposable.
Actually in an objective sense the collective life of ants is worth more than humanities. If humanity vanished all life on earth would flourish, but ants, bees, spiders etc. are such valuable instruments in the ecosystem, if they were to vanish, we would shirty after see total ecological collapse across the earth.
Actually in an objective sense the collective life of ants is worth more than humanities.
I don't think I'd call this objective. I agree that usual valuing of human life over animal life isn't some objective fact of the world.... but neither is valuing functioning ecosystems or the continuity of life on earth.
This isn't really complicated, but you guys are making it so by engaging with the false dichotomy (unintentionally) posed by a cool one liner.
Vegans don't believe that all living creatures are literally equal to each other and deserve equal rights, vegans believe in reducing harm to living creatures to the extent possible and practical.
"Ants aren't equal to humans. Therefore we should torture and slaughter millions of sentient beings that feel pain and emotions." VEGANS BTFO!!!!
As an anti-environmentalist vegan, I believe individual humans matter more than individual ants, and collective humans matter more than collective ants.
I think the 'anti-speciesist' attitude is that moral considerations aren't exclusive to humans. If an animal can suffer, then it's worthy of moral consideration. You can believe that without believing that all species are worthy of the same moral consideration.
Vegans would say, for example, that it's immoral for humans to cause animals to suffer and to kill animals just so we can enjoy their meat or milk or eggs or fur, when these things aren't necessary to our survival.
Some would go further and say that animals have some rights, like a right to life, even if they're not the same rights that human have.
It's a good line, but I think not wanting to harm any living thing is separate from how much you value it. We don't really know how The Joined place value on things. If they were all equal, wouldn't they be taking care of all of the animals?
I was looking specifically for this take, I mostly agree.
They aren't doing everything they can to make ants happy. Only humans. So you can argue they value humans more.
That said, they wouldn't kill an ant to save a human. So they have principles that you could argue value the human life the same as an ants, in some ways.
See this is where the Others are lying by omission do they want the others happy because they love them? Yes. But that’s not the only reason. The unjoined are a threat. The entire hive can be crippled by being yelled at.
They need the Unjoined happy because they can’t handle negative emotions, but they can’t just leave the unjoined to starve to death either. Their drive is to get every human mind to join, that means taking care of the unjoined until they can join.
We see that in the cold open. Kusimayu’s village appears unchanged. To her it looks like her normal life only the joined are content, but they still act like individuals. The instant she joins they all separate and are probably preparing to head to whatever the nearest production facility that needs more bodies. It’s entirely possible she won’t see at least some of her family again. Sure they are connected in her head, but what makes Kusimayu, Kusimayu, and what makes her mother, her mother will likely never communicate in any meaningful way.
I feel if Kusimayu saw how the joined lived outside her village she would be disturbed to say the least.
If only Carol knew at the dinner what she knows now, she could have made a much more compelling argument to Laxmi if she had asked Ravi who he loved more, her or his mom.
They also see humans as someone who was left behind and need "help". They compared it to watching someone drowning and they feel compelled to help them because they can't just stand there and watch someone drown. So I don't know if they value humans more but they definitely love humans and want to "help" them by joining the hivemind
But for example they do value lifestock the same as humans, if they are not killing them to save humans from starvation. I think basically its like the trolley problem. They go with the "do not intervene" approach, in which they basically can say its not their fault.
This is true, and I had a question about them administering antibiotics to Manousos. Isn't that killing things to them? It being a size thing wouldn't make sense to me bc theyre technically a microscopic virus-type being. Maybe saving hosts vs non-potential beings
I don't know if they value humans more but they definitely seem to love humans more because they want to "help" them by making them happy and making them join the hivemind. They see humans as someone who needs help like someone who was left behind and is missing out on the happiness of being in the hivemind.
They compared it to someone drowning and needing to be saved.
Get in my ambulance Carol. Nothing's gonna happen I swear. No one's around but me. You think I would have come all this way just to hurt you? I'm not a psycho. Get in my ambulance. So we can talk.
Is he not? What makes a human inherently more valuable than an ant? What metrics of "value" are you using? Capacity for abstract thought? Ability to create art and appreciate beauty? Why are these things more important than what ants do? Would the existence of art and beauty have any value were we not here to value it? Would the world, the galaxy, the universe be objectively worse with no humans in it?
One of the reasons I like this show so much is because while some of the characters do, the show itself doesn't seem to be taking these knee-jerk reactions as assumptions. There's a lot of interesting philosophical thought here, and whatever answer you end up arriving at for yourself it's having the discussion about how you got there that's important.
It's easy to say that you think humans are inherently more valuable than ants. But why you think that?
It‘s not as easy an answer as he suggests. This is the precise question asked by certain ethicists such as Peter Singer (a guy with whom I have difficulties agreeing) which is sort of the base for a anti-speciesist argument.
Peter Singer doesn't argue that all animals are equal. His stance is closer to a sliding scale based on complexity of cognitive function rather than solely species membership.
His argument would be that severely mentally impaired people are less capable of suffering. This is clearly true at the extremes: someone in a vegetative state no longer responds to pain. More controversially, Singer claims that newborn infants have less moral worth than typical adult humans. There are a lot more complex questions here, such as "how closely is intelligence tied to sentience, if at all?", and you're better off reading Singer or another writer's actual work instead of summaries by Redditors misremembering high school.
I‘m definitely not a fan of his and neither am I comfortable with many of his arguments. What I do find compelling however, is the Bentham argument. If it can clearly suffer, maybe we should avoid it. Of course, a whole host of other questions will follow. I think the point, in the end, is that Manny‘s take here is not as easy of a takedown as it might seem at first glance.
I don’t think it’s black and white but I do think a couple of his beliefs are just flat out evil. Like his stance on post birth abortions is something I find abhorrent as he doesn’t see infants as people and thinks it’s ok for the parents to kill their own infants. In some cases like where a child is born with a genetic condition like trisomy 18 I can see the argument but he argues that it’s fine if the parents just don’t feel like being parents. Thats something I have no problem calling evil. And I also think he’s utilitarian to a fault. But the thing that makes me feel so strongly about him is his stance on infanticide
Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill any baby they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?
Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although no newborn baby has a sense of the future, and therefore no newborn baby is a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill any newborn baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for an infant without serious disabilities. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it. Although there are also sometimes couples willing to adopt, love and care for infants with serious disabilities, that is not always the case.
"Person" here being a term of art referring to "a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future."
Few would dispute that Singer's opinions are controversial, but if controversial ethical stances made a philosopher a fraud, we'd have none left.
this, combined with the opening scene of the episode showing a culture being destroyed in the blink of an eye, show a clear message: We are losing our humanity by joining the hive
I never understood that kind of logic and it just sounds small minded to me. Why does being respectful to other lifeforms mean that you devalue human life? I believe that people who care about animals are actually also kinder to people because they are capable of empathy. And also on what basis can we as a species still argue that we are rightfully superior to everything around us? But then again I am probably in the minority thinking that the world is better off with the hive than actual humans who are destroying and consuming everything available to them in the name of "freedom” and “individuality".
I actually think this argument falls flat pretty quickly when you evaluate it.
They actually do say this: they value all life equally, but what it means in practical terms is: they're not willing to harm anyone and they're willing to treat everyone with good intent and love. In human terms treating both equally would obviously be derogatory towards the humans, but in this case they'll always treat every living thing with surgical goodness. It doesn't undermine what they do for humans -- They just go extreme lengths to provide everything for any living thing. They are basically saying that their own nature forbids them from being the cause of harm to either. They operate on moral absolutism, something alien to humans.
I don't think the hive sees other living things as equal to the hive. I think they see the hive as set apart. It's true that the hive tries not to kill or harm other living things. But the hive also does not make any effort to help other living things. The hive tries to help the hive. It just has limits on what it will do to help itself.
I think he is religious, believing man is created in God’s image. This is why he says they are stealing souls and humans are above all other living things. Why he will not steal and is trying to save everyone.
I'm assuming most people with an upbringing around Asian religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism, etc. would look at that and assume Manousos is a jerk.
This whole conversation made me think "My god, Chidi from Good Place would be losing his mind in this world."
He could play the same kind of role for Carol that he played for Eleanor, a moral conscience and tutor. I've said before that I'd love it if Carol could James Kirk the Hive - basically, do what he would do to crazy computers, and talk it into destroying itself. But man, Chidi... he could wrap it up in so many logic bombs that well, we might have one good episode or two, and the series would be over. Hmm... Come to think of it, maybe it's a good thing that it's Carol rather than Chidi.
I have a stomach ache!
You put the peeps in the chili pot, it makes it taste… bad
Someone needs to write a fanfic of The Good Place characters in the Pluribus universe.
There’s already Mindy St. Claire fanfic but you have to pay for those sites
I would pay to read a well written version of this lol!!
Eleanor would be Carol, Jason would be Diabete, Tahani would be Laxmi, and Chidi would be losing his mind in a corner
Hell if you made him watch Pluribus he'd break down crying.
"I am vexed, Eleanor. Vexed!"
No, he wouldn't lose his mind... he would have a stomach ache, though.
Now, him trying to understand Jeremy Bearimy... that makes him lose his mind.
To be fair, Chidi also lost his mind in our world.
Like a fork in a garbage disposal in there
Hell yeah
Oh my God I’d love to see that mashup
His stomach would hurt so bad 😭
9000 Km para esta mierda
[artificial voice] Nine thousand kilometers for this shit
¡CALLESE LA JETA!
(That reaction was hilarious lol)
Shut your trap.
I need that translator app. It’s so good!
It’s google translate, and it isn’t actually very good…
Totally fair to say that, bro almost died on his way.
Yeah I'm on his side 😂
Tbf he could've avoided all 9k Km of that by hitching a ride more or less.
that’s just what a plurb would say
ʕ ͡° ʖ̯ ͡°ʔ
Let’s not forget, it was in a totally preventable way. He also 100% could’ve handled better the meeting with Carol. He could’ve waited another day to do his experiment. Etc etc
Carol could've handled her meeting with the survivors* better as well. I wonder if we'll ever see her self-reflect on that.
*sorry, not all the survivors, as she didn't bother to invite the non-English speaking ones.
I've literally said those exact words except it was 100 km.
i calculated the distance it has to be close to 12000 km instead.
Shut your trap
He’s a man of principles & morality & Carol can sometimes come across as an entitled elitist
In this episode in particular Carol came across pretty self absorbed.
He traveled nine thousand miles, acted pretty much exactly the way she was acting in the first two episodes and she was so hesitant to give him any information. She doesn't think he ought to know what the other survivors are doing. And on top of that she only comes around on saving the world when she realizes it will affect her personally.
As the saying goes: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing... after they have tried everything else".
Meanwhile the survivors of other nationalities (besides Manousos) never even entertained the idea of doing the right thing
Well, in their minds they are. Since they believe the world is better than way.
Nah, Diabate is just rationalizing what he knows to be wrong and Laxmi is just in denial about her son stll totally being a kid and not some leviathan of humanity corrupted by an alien virus
In defense of Carol she's had literally the whole world working her psychologically in the form of her fantasy dream woman for weeks. Then this somewhat rude but principled man arrives and wants her to help him take it all away. Of course she's going to be reluctant.
Had he showed up during her isolation (or any point prior) they would have gone right to work. Yes, Carol's realization that they are still working to turn her is a selfish motive, but remember that for Carol, everyone else in the world besides Manousos is okay with this situation. They're being selfish, so perhaps she felt entitled to a little selfishness too. Why is she saving the world? Just for this one asshole, vs. keeping the status quo with her dream girl?
It's not shocking where her head was at until she understood the hive's manipulation. Also, I don't think she'll fall into that trap again. If she ever doubts her conviction, I could see her pressing Zosia about her past self a bit more. She was afraid to even ask the gender of her previous partner. I could see her reapproaching that topic if she wants to convince herself to move on. She might get plurb-Zosia to admit that the real Zosia would not want a relationship with Carol at all.
Zosia also cleverly(?) primed Carol to think Manousos was dangerous. The “we don’t THINK he would hurt you…” Of course she was nervous af to get into the back of his ambulansia.
The emphasis on that statement was on you. The implication was he might hurt the joined.
And he did! He made a hive trauma.
Yep. And Carol’s attitude toward the joined has clearly changed after having more conversations with them. She started out insisting they were as good as dead, and now she understands/says that they’re still human, only changed.
Well tbf, he did warn them.
Yes lol
True, but why even mention at all that Manousos was capable of doing harm to anyone unless the hive was trying to subtly make carol nervous/leery of him and preemptively undermine their potential alliance (remember that carol now has affection for zosia and feels protective of her)
Because Carol asked her directly if he was dangerous.
“Only in the sense that he seems to see us as a threat to his safety.” would also be accurate and reflect more on their level of knowledge & brain power if they were talking about him the way they would anyone else.
a lot of people here are missing the ways the plurbs are manipulating the humans, theres a lot of room temp iq watching this show
Of course it was on me. I was highlighting the fact that it could leave room for doubt in Carol’s mind.
The reason I put a question mark after “cleverly” is because I don’t know if it was intentional to make her think he could hurt her. But either way, I think it put the thought there, and it’s why she’s extremely cagey with him off the bat.
EDIT: lol I’m a dumbass and misread, plz ignore
Not YOU, u/CeciliaStarfish… Zosia said the following and emphasized the final word:
“We don’t THINK he would hurt YOU…”
Oh haha. Fair enough, my bad for misreading that.
If I was witnessing this exchange in a group chat, I would react to your comment here with a heart emoji and no comment. I hope that makes sense.
I can’t navigate a fuckin’ pronoun, I might be a plurb
'ambulansia' came across in Carol's voice for sure. I snorted.
That seemed like a truthful warning though? The first thing Manousos does when waking up in hospital after being saved is to literally hold a scalpel to the plurb doctor’s neck. He’s clearly capable of violence.
Because he clearly sees the Hive as antagonists and a threat to his freedom. Which they could have said.
They didn’t lie, true enough.
Not to mention the cult tactics employed by Them, intentional or not. Break their rules, and lose contact with literally everyone. No chance of re-entry into broader society, because there is none.
Also, it shows the downside of Manousos’ distrust and stubbornness. If he’d just accepted the flight to Albuquerque, we would have arrived soon after she made the first tape and she would have been ready to help him.
Exactly. It proves that his steadfast idealism isn't actually conducive to saving the world. You've got to be more flexible and pragmatic in that kind of situation.
We also saw him become more flexible after getting stonewalled by Carol. He realized that, ironically, the hive would be more willing to cooperate in their own defeat than Carol at that moment.
He also would have died due to his stubbornness having helped no one. Definitely a lesson in using the tools on hand and not blindly sticking to ideals.
Yeah it was a stretch that she'd act like this.
No HUMAN has wanted to talk to her. He wants to save the world with her. He traveled around the world and learned English along the way.
Yeah... She's been seduced.... But still seemed pretty far fetched that she'd give up her value system.
Also noticed the Carol writing a book and gathering info subplots have both been abandoned.
The finale was really annoying to me for this reason. Just dragged all that shit out for essentially nothing to happen. Carol and Manousos end up working together anyway they just wasted our time with shitty writing to make this show even slower
Yeah, Carol tends to be selfish, elitist, very judgmental, and pretty biased. If Manousos looked like Zosia, I think she has a completely different response.
in carol's defence: the only reason his journey was remotely arduous was because of a self imposed rule he set. he could have just asked them to fly him there (they offered!), and from carol's perspective, why wouldn't he do that?
by that point carol had already gone to spain for an equally pointless conversation with the other individuals. she could have crossed the atlantic in a rowboat alone instead of getting a ride in a plane, but why would any of the other individuals care if she made the journey harder on herself?
was she being unreasonable? yeah maybe. but she got on-board in the end so i dont really mind
She's been coming across as extremely self absorbed since the start of the show. I don't get how half of this subreddit refused to acknowledge that, excusing it with trauma.
Carol was put through psychological warfare deemed literally a crime by international agreements because it's so punitive. She has 7 billion manipulators playing on her day and night. It's not as simple as "Carol is self absorbed"
9000 km* which is 5592 miles.
She seems to be embodying the American spirit really well
I don’t blame her for not trusting him in the beginning. A strange man shows up in an ambulance with a machete at his hip? He’s lucky she left her house.
She was also protecting her relationship with Zosia/The Hive by withholding information. At this point, Carol has all but "joined" with the hive until the illusion shatters. Upon Mano's arrival, Carol was aware of her hypocrisy, but craved the connection she had with Helen so deeply that it compromised her judgement.
Exactly.
They’re both dicks.
And they’re both great.
That’s why makes us humans special.
I guarantee you Manaosus would be insufferable in real life though. Its beyond morals to not be ok with looting when you are trying to save the world. Its stupidity and immoral to not use all resources at your disposal to restore the world.
I think they are playing with that image a lot. What I also noticed in one of the earlier episodes, was also that she represents the international stereotype about americans, that they are a bit ignorant when it comes to the rest of the world. At one point she was even having a monologue about "freedom" with the US flag in the background on the airplane, being ignorant to what the others even experience. Then later "they" even told her, the other survivors where not happy about being excluded from being invited in the first place, only because they dont speak english.
Surely not compared to Diabaté.
She basically became toned down Diabate the last episode for a while, but I feel for her and she's being manipulated and love bombed.
Diabate doesn't come across as an entitled elitist he comes across as a rational guy accepting the way the apocalypse happened and recognizes his own powerlessness to do anything meaningful
And he likes to fuck, even if it is a bit rapey.
Super rapey. Compared with the other uninfected, he is affably evil.
I mean. They all consent to him using the bodies of those individuals, including, presumably, whatever is left of the persons themselves. I think it’s an interesting ethical question and imagine it would at best be a really empty endeavor after awhile, but don’t see it as rape exactly because fundamentally, and in their eyes, there is no lack of consent. They have said over and over they WANT to make these people happy, not that they have to (which is why they can leave).
You could say that Carol killing millions was unintentional and due to ignorance, but Diabate raping people is pretty damn intentional and he is shown to be articulate and intellectually capable of understanding what he is doing, he seems to just not care (Carol is also raping Zosia).
The people that the hive mind are using to please Diabate would not be able to consent to the use. The fact that I must say "use" it is a clear indicator that these people, if their minds are still whole, are not willing participants.
People did not join the hive mind of their own free will (as in many other fictional works), the Joining was imposed on them. Anything they are used to do after that can not in any moral framework, be called consent.
I think they would say “we don’t see it that way”. They consider themselves to be a fully formed being/colonial organism with the ability to make decisions (they are just collective decisions) and their own morals. I’m not saying having sex with them is great by any stretch, but I think they genuinely want to do it because it makes him /Carol happy.
The individuals making up the colony can not consent.
I think we are talking about different things.
I agree that the Overmind wishes to please all the uninfected. It can not lie, and it will tell you truthfully that it is aiming to please the 13 (12 now).
My point is, the people that make up the bodies, they did not consent to: being part of the hivemind in the first place, nor to being used for whatever purposes the hivemind has, nor to please the uninfected.
You seem to have a very specific view of the hive and I'm not sure that view is supported by what we've seen on the screen so far.
She did it twice.
Carol also rape Zosia.
Thank you. She also was shown to be verbally abusive and obtuse to EVERYONE in the show: helen, the plurbs, the other uninfected, and even her save the world twin from Paraguay
Carol raping zosia is just as intentional. Zosia is not even a lesbian irl
It can't consent to that. It's not the owner of that individuals body. It's silly to think that it is a collective and that it can speak for the individuals it controls. The beliefs of this collective are not what majority of humans believe.
I don’t know mate…he showed quite a bit of empathy in one of the episodes.
carol raped as well. they're both p evil but at least he's not self righteous
right after Carol since not only did she rape Zosia but Also killed millions of people that could've been saved
Carol did not kill millions of people, she had an entirely rational emotional reaction that, through no fault of her own and entirely the fault of the invading force, caused mass death. It isn’t her fault that getting pissed off affects them so badly, and I think it’s kinda fucked to pin that on her.
You could say that Carol killing millions was unintentional and due to ignorance, but Diabate raping people is pretty damn intentional and he is shown to be articulate and intellectually capable of understanding what he is doing, he seems to just not care.
The guy who immediately took control of airforce 1 and had portraits of himself hung up in a luxurious hotel doesn't strike you as being an entitled elitist? He is a blatant hedonist who clearly thinks he deserves to have everything he wants.
Diabate is cooler because he's honest/fun about it. Carol was self righteous but raped Zoszia
His principles and morality are somewhat flawed though, which I think more people should consider. He admitted that he was more than willing to sacrifice the life and bodies of those that have joined in order to destroy Them.
"If we can't fix Them, They are better off dead."
He’s willing to take a life if he deems it necessary but he won’t take gas from an abandon car without paying, or squat in an empty house… Every human body has become a vessel for the collective, so when he threatens to leave Them dead, he’s also threatening to destroy any chance for that individual to return. In a way, his mindset mirrors the nature of the hive. They are both extremely persistent with clearly defined morals, but their approach to live by those morals is absurdist.
He won’t take things for free but is willing to take a life. They won’t pick an apple even if they starve.
He's not though, he steals stuff. Writing a random IOU on a piece of paper does not make it ok. He stole the ambulance plain and simple.
There is also no morality in mundering a sentient being even if you think badly about them.
Sometimes? That's who she is. She had a whole group of people kissing her ass at the beginning. She did that snooty look towards the airport book stack. Her books had to be on top.
She's not independent and incredibly easy to appease, just pretend to adore her.
She is an elitist, she didn't care until she got to know they were still trying to convert her as well.
Yess I feel like Manousos is who Carol thinks she is in a lot of ways, early on she is screaming about being self sufficient and yet she expects the supermarket to magically be stocked for her.
I really enjoyed how he disrupted Carol's safe little delusion she'd built for herself.
There is a parallel with Zosia, when she says that she loves Carol as much as Manousos or any other.
I felt like they stole this beat from Her.
“You have 600 other boyfriends?!”
But in Her I felt that guy crashing out was more valid. With carol she should’ve realised that she’s the same as the other 12 but her desperation for love made her blind
The maximal pacifism of the “weirdos” has already had plenty of holes poked through it.
You can’t pick an apple, even though the tree “wants” you to eat the apple? That the point of an apple is to be eaten, in order to spread more life.
Releasing captive animals when that certainly means avoidable struggle and death for many of them.
Not to mention the mass homicide that was the initial invasion.
The aliens must have some guiding logic behind such a blunt and ultimately highly inefficient and destructive pacifism.
Of course it is like the nature of a virus, which lives by brutal, simple rules of propagation that can end up destroying the very media and methods they rely on.
This is just a “happy” virus.
It’s kinda like exceptionally virulent viruses. They end up fizzling out because they make you too sick too fast to end up spreading to many people. Just an unintended byproduct of their coding
This is why I think it’s a “created” virus, as opposed to a naturally evolved one.
My friend and I have had several debates about it so far.
I just assumed the inability to "harm" may be more a replication strategy than anything. Their biological imperative is to spread, so forcing the "host" population out of sustainability could just be part of the life cycle. Once the population starts to contract because of artificial scarcity, it pivots from preserving individual bodies to throwing all its remaining resources into building a means to broadcast the signal into space.
Releasing the animals has to do with their “your life is your own” policy. They won’t interfere with nature. Apple trees need animals to eat their apples and spread their seeds, and they won’t prevent that from happening. But they aren’t going to involve themselves in the process either.
Cold? That's fn rational.
Cold as in "hard" "cool" "sick"
Why? Genuinely why?
Just because we are human we should value human life more? Where does this principle extend to? Should I value American lives more then other nationalities? My religion? My gender?
It might be "the way it is" but to say it's "rational?" Why? Make the argument and make it non-arbitrary.
Vegans exist as an offshoot of this argument. They value non-human life much much more than most people to the point they won't eat even honey or milk despite it not harming/killing animals because they don't even want to "exploit" any. I'm closer to a carnivore than a vegan and I cannot dispute their moral and ethical arguments. I just keep eating meat and animal products because I'm selfish and enjoy the taste. What I won't do is pretend I believe I'm somehow objectively justified in doing so.
I can’t fathom how this could be a genuine question. You would extend the line at humans your own species just like how every other species stick to their own kind. You don’t see chimps valuing a honeybee’s life over a fellow chimp now do you.
But as all things considered you don’t go around killing living things unless its necessary for your survival whether it be animals or plants or a fucking bullet Ant that has crawled its way into your short.
Of course I personally value human lives, but we aren't objectively more important or special than ants. Our existence means nothing to the universe, and we came into being the exact same way that ants did. Neither of us are more deserving of life than the other.
Vegans value different animals differently, otherwise they wouldn't drive a care like everyone else and crush hundreds of bugs on their windshield.
Also yes we tend to get more affectionate about people closer to us, that's human nature, first your family then friends etc. not sure how both of these are even discussion points these days.
Well, maybe not more, but differently. In the real world you can argue we have different moral obligations to ants and humans. Of course in the real world we don't avoid killing ants, and sometimes kill them in great number intentionally.
The differing moral obligation comes from differing levels of sentience and likely differing ability to experience suffering. Even so we frown on torturing ants needlessly.
Kinda feels like a very "reddit' question that isn't related.
Of course it's related.
People haven't made good arguments for why I should value human life more. The people responding to me are basically just saying "yes" without any reasoning whatsoever.
If I should value human life more just because I'm human, which at least one person said I should. Then why shouldn't that logic extend out? Why shouldn't I value Americans more because I'm American? This is hardly purely hypothetical. Plenty of Americans think this way and plenty of people in other countries about their own. So too for their religion. That's why all those wars over silly superstitions happen at all. Your fellow believers deserve more than other non-believers.
So why does humans matter more and that's the correct way to think because you're human not turn into Americans matter more and that's the correct way to think because you're American. Reason it out.
You ignored his justification for that differing obligation. He had pretty clear one, and it didn't rely on nationality or religion.
Yes.
To humans.
Every argument is arbitrary. Opinions and morality are not objective, by definition.
Devil's Advocate: Isn't "loving all living beings equally" the logical extreme of God loving all humans equally? Because there are some people who dislike the notion that God loves bad people just as much as them.
In fact, it was brought up later in this episode when Carol was upset that Zosia/they loved Manousos as much as she/they loved her. Maybe it was just a coincidence that the same core subject was broached twice in the same episode under competing perspectives. To me, it was too coincidental.
Don't be jealous Carol: Just because they love Manousos equally as much doesn't mean they love you less. Don't be jealous Manousos: Just because they love a ants equally as much, doesn't mean they love humans less.
You guys are so uncurious and uncritical.
You think just stating a position because you say so is enough. Thankfully we do not live most of life this way. Imagine if everyone walked around in life saying "because I said so" as the backstop for their positions. What a terrible world.
But they're not all crested equal. Otherwise fascism is just as valid as democracy. All opinions on how governments should operate. Both just arbitrary.
Shocking that so many intelligent people throughout history wrestled with moral philosophy and trying to justify their behaviors and opinions rather than just taking your superior approach of "it's this way because I said so!"
Make the argument and make it non-arbitrary.
Based as fuck lmao 'Yes' Yes indeed. I'm all for ants, they're cool as fuck, but in no way does an animal have the same value as a human life, except cats and dogs.
You were SO close, but alas, wrong... cats and dogs do not have the same value as a human, and they are NOT replacement children which makes people THINK that in the first place.
This is what happens when you don't really have any arguments and just go on vibes. You're like "well I vibe with cats and dogs so they're in too" and someone else comes in and says "nah not for me."
And it just comes down to "because I said so."
Not exactly a great foundation for your moral philosophy.
Reading all the replies to your comment was so ridiculously cringe. None of these people have any rationality at all. It really is just vibes.
What the fuck are these people even lmao??
Oh nah cats and dogs as replacement kids is cringe, those people need help, they're still chill as fuck tho and I can think of a few people who I'd value less than some husky down the road.
This reads like an attempt to be deep from a 14 year old I’m sorry.
Well animals are killed for milk. Like veal is male calves from the dairy industry. They only keep female cows. And cows are killed after a few years when they produce less milk.
waste of space
If you don't value a human life more than an ant you have deep psychological issues
Real.
sweats in veganism
Peter Singer btfo‘d by Manny
ngl it did give me pause for a moment lol
Like, obviously vegans don't actually see the life of an ant as being worth more than a humans, but you're supposed to adopt a anti-speciest attitude that, whilst not necessarily elevating the position of the ant above that of humans, does pose the question of "why do I have any more right to life than an ant?". It's true that, at an individual level, we are as equally disposable.
Actually in an objective sense the collective life of ants is worth more than humanities. If humanity vanished all life on earth would flourish, but ants, bees, spiders etc. are such valuable instruments in the ecosystem, if they were to vanish, we would shirty after see total ecological collapse across the earth.
Gets the noggin' joggin' I guess.
I don't think I'd call this objective. I agree that usual valuing of human life over animal life isn't some objective fact of the world.... but neither is valuing functioning ecosystems or the continuity of life on earth.
This isn't really complicated, but you guys are making it so by engaging with the false dichotomy (unintentionally) posed by a cool one liner.
Vegans don't believe that all living creatures are literally equal to each other and deserve equal rights, vegans believe in reducing harm to living creatures to the extent possible and practical.
"Ants aren't equal to humans. Therefore we should torture and slaughter millions of sentient beings that feel pain and emotions." VEGANS BTFO!!!!
As an anti-environmentalist vegan, I believe individual humans matter more than individual ants, and collective humans matter more than collective ants.
I think the 'anti-speciesist' attitude is that moral considerations aren't exclusive to humans. If an animal can suffer, then it's worthy of moral consideration. You can believe that without believing that all species are worthy of the same moral consideration.
Vegans would say, for example, that it's immoral for humans to cause animals to suffer and to kill animals just so we can enjoy their meat or milk or eggs or fur, when these things aren't necessary to our survival.
Some would go further and say that animals have some rights, like a right to life, even if they're not the same rights that human have.
It's a good line, but I think not wanting to harm any living thing is separate from how much you value it. We don't really know how The Joined place value on things. If they were all equal, wouldn't they be taking care of all of the animals?
I was looking specifically for this take, I mostly agree.
They aren't doing everything they can to make ants happy. Only humans. So you can argue they value humans more.
That said, they wouldn't kill an ant to save a human. So they have principles that you could argue value the human life the same as an ants, in some ways.
See this is where the Others are lying by omission do they want the others happy because they love them? Yes. But that’s not the only reason. The unjoined are a threat. The entire hive can be crippled by being yelled at. They need the Unjoined happy because they can’t handle negative emotions, but they can’t just leave the unjoined to starve to death either. Their drive is to get every human mind to join, that means taking care of the unjoined until they can join.
We see that in the cold open. Kusimayu’s village appears unchanged. To her it looks like her normal life only the joined are content, but they still act like individuals. The instant she joins they all separate and are probably preparing to head to whatever the nearest production facility that needs more bodies. It’s entirely possible she won’t see at least some of her family again. Sure they are connected in her head, but what makes Kusimayu, Kusimayu, and what makes her mother, her mother will likely never communicate in any meaningful way. I feel if Kusimayu saw how the joined lived outside her village she would be disturbed to say the least.
If only Carol knew at the dinner what she knows now, she could have made a much more compelling argument to Laxmi if she had asked Ravi who he loved more, her or his mom.
They also see humans as someone who was left behind and need "help". They compared it to watching someone drowning and they feel compelled to help them because they can't just stand there and watch someone drown. So I don't know if they value humans more but they definitely love humans and want to "help" them by joining the hivemind
But for example they do value lifestock the same as humans, if they are not killing them to save humans from starvation. I think basically its like the trolley problem. They go with the "do not intervene" approach, in which they basically can say its not their fault.
This is true, and I had a question about them administering antibiotics to Manousos. Isn't that killing things to them? It being a size thing wouldn't make sense to me bc theyre technically a microscopic virus-type being. Maybe saving hosts vs non-potential beings
I do think there is a heirarchy of this, i.e. what they can vs can't control. Otherwise wouldn't they be freaking out every time they walked on grass?
They'd have to ask first.
I don't know if they value humans more but they definitely seem to love humans more because they want to "help" them by making them happy and making them join the hivemind. They see humans as someone who needs help like someone who was left behind and is missing out on the happiness of being in the hivemind.
They compared it to someone drowning and needing to be saved.
Carol Stuka! … « unknown name or place …»
He's a stubborn asshole but he's not wrong.
Get in my ambulance Carol. Nothing's gonna happen I swear. No one's around but me. You think I would have come all this way just to hurt you? I'm not a psycho. Get in my ambulance. So we can talk.
Diplomatic he's not
I put the machete in the front seat I would have to really stretch to grab it and obviously I don't feel like doing that so you're fine
You can chinga his madre but you can’t chinga his logic
I kind of want to draw him with these words underneath…dammit I might have to, this is a good one.
If you do, I wanna see it. Drop a link when you do :)
🫡
Is he not? What makes a human inherently more valuable than an ant? What metrics of "value" are you using? Capacity for abstract thought? Ability to create art and appreciate beauty? Why are these things more important than what ants do? Would the existence of art and beauty have any value were we not here to value it? Would the world, the galaxy, the universe be objectively worse with no humans in it?
One of the reasons I like this show so much is because while some of the characters do, the show itself doesn't seem to be taking these knee-jerk reactions as assumptions. There's a lot of interesting philosophical thought here, and whatever answer you end up arriving at for yourself it's having the discussion about how you got there that's important.
It's easy to say that you think humans are inherently more valuable than ants. But why you think that?
Manousos is so fucking tuff
It‘s not as easy an answer as he suggests. This is the precise question asked by certain ethicists such as Peter Singer (a guy with whom I have difficulties agreeing) which is sort of the base for a anti-speciesist argument.
Peter Singer doesn't argue that all animals are equal. His stance is closer to a sliding scale based on complexity of cognitive function rather than solely species membership.
How does he account for variances in cognitive function within species? Say, in humans? Are severely mentally impaired people more allowed to suffer
His argument would be that severely mentally impaired people are less capable of suffering. This is clearly true at the extremes: someone in a vegetative state no longer responds to pain. More controversially, Singer claims that newborn infants have less moral worth than typical adult humans. There are a lot more complex questions here, such as "how closely is intelligence tied to sentience, if at all?", and you're better off reading Singer or another writer's actual work instead of summaries by Redditors misremembering high school.
Well, you don't need to ask what some dude thinks. That's how it is in practice.
Peter singer is such a fraud. Took a bio ethics class in college and that guy is genuinely evil
I‘m definitely not a fan of his and neither am I comfortable with many of his arguments. What I do find compelling however, is the Bentham argument. If it can clearly suffer, maybe we should avoid it. Of course, a whole host of other questions will follow. I think the point, in the end, is that Manny‘s take here is not as easy of a takedown as it might seem at first glance.
Why is he evil? Because you just feel that he is?
Read the chapter on him in “disability visibility”
I don’t think it’s black and white but I do think a couple of his beliefs are just flat out evil. Like his stance on post birth abortions is something I find abhorrent as he doesn’t see infants as people and thinks it’s ok for the parents to kill their own infants. In some cases like where a child is born with a genetic condition like trisomy 18 I can see the argument but he argues that it’s fine if the parents just don’t feel like being parents. Thats something I have no problem calling evil. And I also think he’s utilitarian to a fault. But the thing that makes me feel so strongly about him is his stance on infanticide
From Peter Singer's website:
"Person" here being a term of art referring to "a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future."
Few would dispute that Singer's opinions are controversial, but if controversial ethical stances made a philosopher a fraud, we'd have none left.
Anyone calling this evil simply is not fit for engaging in such debates.
It's not evil, but it is insane to value a man's life the same as an ant, and that is an easy answer.
“Are you not of more value than many sparrows?” (Matthew 10:31)
this, combined with the opening scene of the episode showing a culture being destroyed in the blink of an eye, show a clear message: We are losing our humanity by joining the hive
Manousos made me really see why carol had no one in her life before the virus except for Helen. Every interaction with him she is unbearable.
I never understood that kind of logic and it just sounds small minded to me. Why does being respectful to other lifeforms mean that you devalue human life? I believe that people who care about animals are actually also kinder to people because they are capable of empathy. And also on what basis can we as a species still argue that we are rightfully superior to everything around us? But then again I am probably in the minority thinking that the world is better off with the hive than actual humans who are destroying and consuming everything available to them in the name of "freedom” and “individuality".
People have souls. Animals do not.
Animals are not on the same level.
I actually think this argument falls flat pretty quickly when you evaluate it.
They actually do say this: they value all life equally, but what it means in practical terms is: they're not willing to harm anyone and they're willing to treat everyone with good intent and love. In human terms treating both equally would obviously be derogatory towards the humans, but in this case they'll always treat every living thing with surgical goodness. It doesn't undermine what they do for humans -- They just go extreme lengths to provide everything for any living thing. They are basically saying that their own nature forbids them from being the cause of harm to either. They operate on moral absolutism, something alien to humans.
I don't think the hive sees other living things as equal to the hive. I think they see the hive as set apart. It's true that the hive tries not to kill or harm other living things. But the hive also does not make any effort to help other living things. The hive tries to help the hive. It just has limits on what it will do to help itself.
Jainism is an entire religion with millions of followers that basically believes this
The answer is no, not if you truly value an ant. The plurbs objectively value humanity far more than Manusos does. Tired of the dickriding
honestly not, it just means you can extend empathy beyond your species
Finger clicking good
Animal activists and philosophers would like to disagree
I think he is religious, believing man is created in God’s image. This is why he says they are stealing souls and humans are above all other living things. Why he will not steal and is trying to save everyone.
He’s a man of unbending principle and integrity, he refuses to back down and seek comfort which is why he’s the best case survivor in the show.
Actually , humanity could be the equivalent of ants from whoever created the virus?
I guess this line is why it ended up in my dreams.
Buddhists would be like "bro, srsly?"
I'm assuming most people with an upbringing around Asian religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism, etc. would look at that and assume Manousos is a jerk.
Not even that. I have no connection with that and I also see it as Manousos being a jerk
Is he the main character now 🤣 can't actually believe carol left him I was really thinking she was going to snap out their and then
Spitting facts
get this man child or my face
Manousos wasn't wrong. But I'm not saying the Hive is evil. To me, it's a virus that leverages the collective intelligence of beings to spread itself.
Zosia when she drops the act: "your life is as valuable as a summer ant..."