Ethical assesment of the plot in "Kingsman: The Secret Service" (2014) (spoilers)

[Delta4Embassy]

In the movie, the James Bond'esque villian is a billionaire, who, tired of throwing money at the climate change issue wuith zero results 'has an epiphany' and concludes the reason climate change is still occuring is both politicians are more concerned with re-elections, and there's too many people. So logicly he hatches a plan to fix climate change by reducing the number of people.

He makes available a SIM card offering free phone and internet for everyone on Earth for forever. Naturally many take im up on his offer and now equipped with his SIM cards have made themselves vulnerable to his diabolical plan. In the SIm cards is hardware that transmits a wavelength disabling the brain's inhibitors while stimulating the anger area resulting in people violently attacking the first people they see (even their own babies.) The plan being to make just about everyone kill just about everyone else (but those he selects for saving) to reduce the population drastically and thus the impact on the enviroment.

Ignoring the plot hole of what do a small number of people now do about the rotting carcasses in the streets creating a biohazard of Biblical proportions, if you save the planet and humanity by getting others to kill one another, are you in fact a bad person? You're not actually killing anyone, but by messing with their heads, and getting them to kill themselves, you're saving the planet to be sure.

Is this defensible? Do the ends justify the means if nothing else is likely to ever work?

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no 'saving the planet'.
There are only human concepts and separations of the whole that is the universe into parts.
What we don't like we often call 'bad'.
If someone were to take matters in hand and effect a population reduction (something I have suspected might happen any time), it will not matter to 'nature'; it will just be another natural occurrence.
After all, what are humans but a natural part of things?

 

[PratchettFan]

In the movie, the James Bond'esque villian is a billionaire, who, tired of throwing money at the climate change issue wuith zero results 'has an epiphany' and concludes the reason climate change is still occuring is both politicians are more concerned with re-elections, and there's too many people. So logicly he hatches a plan to fix climate change by reducing the number of people.

He makes available a SIM card offering free phone and internet for everyone on Earth for forever. Naturally many take im up on his offer and now equipped with his SIM cards have made themselves vulnerable to his diabolical plan. In the SIm cards is hardware that transmits a wavelength disabling the brain's inhibitors while stimulating the anger area resulting in people violently attacking the first people they see (even their own babies.) The plan being to make just about everyone kill just about everyone else (but those he selects for saving) to reduce the population drastically and thus the impact on the enviroment.

Ignoring the plot hole of what do a small number of people now do about the rotting carcasses in the streets creating a biohazard of Biblical proportions, if you save the planet and humanity by getting others to kill one another, are you in fact a bad person? You're not actually killing anyone, but by messing with their heads, and getting them to kill themselves, you're saving the planet to be sure.

Is this defensible? Do the ends justify the means if nothing else is likely to ever work?

The villain's plan was to reduce the number of people on the planet to those who agreed with him. He had no intention of dying himself. So he was only concerned with solving the immediate problem of having the planet he wanted, not to simply remove the "virus" entirely. By leaving the "virus" in place, he simply assured that the same problems would develop in the future. His motives were purely selfish and had no concern for the planet.

As to the planet, it is not currently in any danger at all - at least not from humans. We may well cause the climate to change, but that is nothing to the planet. The impact will be upon us, not it.

 

[there4eyeM]

The only impact that could ever be is on us. That is what makes something dangerous or not.