You know, I think I’ve seen some people agree with Jon’s plan in MAG 200 (trap the fears in the current world and destroy the whole thing to prevent them from spreading to others) but ALSO they didn’t agree with Gertrude sacrificing Michael--and not just because it turns out the stakes weren't the "end of the world" just that they think got was wrong of her to trick and sacrifice him regardless.
That’s interesting to me, because I see Jon’s plan in MAG 200 as equivalent to sacrificing Michael but on a greater scale ( as in: the 7 billion-ish people trapped in hellscapes don’t deserve what Jon trapping them in any more than Michael did, even if it was arguably necessary).
Anyway, since I find this interesting I am making an informal poll. Given the stakes that they believe are in play at the moment for Gertrude and Jon, is it morally justified for them to sacrifice unwilling people? Tag or reply with your moral philosophy opinion.
Jon’s logic was morally right but Gertrude’s was not.
Gertrude’s logic was morally right but Jon’s was not.
Jon’s logic was not morally correct but it was very hot and sexy.
I didn’t find Jon sexy, but Gertrude sacrificing emotionally traumatized twinks is hot as hell. RIP Jon.
I actually find both Jon AND Gertrude sexy.
No! No! Murder and genocide is wrong and not at all sexy! Stop that!
I can excuse murder and genocide but I draw the line at lying to Martin.
Your question didn’t contain the words “Elias” or “Jonah” so I can’t understand what you’re asking.
Jon and Gertrude were both morally justified, actually.