Is Galactus Evil

This could be a heated topic but here goes.Galactus is my Favorite bad guy the comics portray him as a force of nature.It is said that one day he will give back to the universe more then he has taken.Now the question is,can you call him evil .In real life a being who kills millions would be evil on a larger scale then Hitler or Stalin.My own take is that he is evil killing untold Billions.Sometimes I wrestle with the moral implacations of liking a being who eats worlds for a living or for survial.This is comics its not real however it is still a good Question is Galactus evil.Galactus does not get a perverse pleasure out of killing like say Thanos does.Does that make a differance or not,what are your thoughts on this Topic comic book brethen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2006 10:12AM by Galactus 1.

Good question.
I've said this before: He may or may not be evil, but if he comes by for a visit to my planet, he needs to be stopped.

So let's look at him for a moment like a force of nature. Was the Tsunami evil? Maybe not, because it had no malicious intent, sort of like Galactus. But was it a nice thing? No. Should superheroes try to stop a force of nature that is going to try to destroy a million people. Yes.

Ma' of 'rk.

"My parents went to The Secret Wars Battleworld and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt..."

Well, the term "evil" was coined by a culture that had no appreciation for the idea of universal absolutes, and produced such addages as "no man is so good that he is not without fault, and no man so evil that he is without redeeming virtues".

At it's root, the term evil refers to a poison or illness... something that deprives an organism (eg. a person) or macro-organism (eg. a related group of people) of their holiness, meaning their wholeness or health.

Galactus certainly does that... deprives entire planets of their health. Of course, we also do that to cattle and crops, and even our fellow man, in order to sustain ourselves or our group.

So, I would not say that Galactus is evil in any absolutist, moralistic sense. When given other outs Galactus has taken them, so he is not evil in an intrinsic sense. What it takes for him to go on surviving however, may very well place him in the position of evil towards humanity and equivalent lifeforms. So, his capacity for working evil (on us or our allies) is very definite, if not absolute, and much greater than your average lifeforms. He eats us... knowing we are intelligent and creative.

And that is one way in which Galactus differs from a force of nature... he is conscious of his actions, acutely aware of his deeds.

As for whether or not G will pay it all back in the end... maybe he will and maybe he won't. What does that matter to all those he has slaughtered?

I guess I'm with Mark on this one folks; I'm not gonig to paint horns and a spaded tail on Galactus, but if he comes this way I would definitely be preparing for the worst even as I hoped for the best.

Is a wolf that eats a deer evil. No he merely does it to survive. As to for galactus. Are humans evil for killing and eating cows for meat? To galactus the people on the planets he eats are no more then cattle to him. He is as far above humans as humans are above cows. SO whats the difference.

He is not evil nor good. He is simply a threat and a Antagonist.

A wolf eating a deer is a good example. Not evil.
I almost used a lion eating an antelope. Not evil.
But what about a lion eating a child from a village?
Well, technically, still not evil. But don't tell that to the villagers...

"My parents went to The Secret Wars Battleworld and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt..."

Galactus should not be defined as Evil, unless he actively seeks out civilized world while passing up uninhabited worlds that fit his needs. He has always chosen the first world he came across, inhabited or not.

I guess i would say Galactus is Destructive, not Evil. Evil is the intent behind the action, not the action itself.

Exactly. Evil is a human moral concept defined and rendered, or at the very least received, from the human perspective. Without those who provide the defintion the concepts of good and evil lose their value. They are a product of culture, not nature.

Powersurge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. Evil is a human moral concept defined and
> rendered, or at the very least received, from the
> human perspective. Without those who provide the
> defintion the concepts of good and evil lose their
> value. They are a product of culture, not nature.


Well I disagree there. I believe, adn we are getting on semi sensitive groud. There are absolute evils and absolute goods. There have been a lot of people in history that socioligically did not follow there culture. So they were not a "product of culture". As I am sure you know the socilogical term for these people is deviant. These people dispict growing up in a loving nutureing envoirment committed horrible acts. Acts that most cultures ever to exist consider to be reprehenible.

One could state that they are simply psycologically messed up. Though experts have show that this is not always the case.

I concur Junderway I absolutely belive in Good and Evil they are not just culture related we all know inside to Murder a human being is wrong whether at a atm for his money or Hate is wrong period.Galactus chooses to drain worlds by choice.With his great science could he not find other energy sources.Maybe he does do it for survial like we eat cows and other animals.And I knew this could be a heated topic I for one will be civilized on this topic.If evil is only man made then who can say what is right or wrong.If one man says this is okay but another says its wrong.Then what is the point to have laws if its just man made.Galactus is a enigma for sure,Forget the Billions of lives he is killing its all about me my survial.But I can say at least he doesnt take evil pleasure in killing.Galactus maybe the most unique cosmic being in marvel universe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2006 07:14AM by Galactus 1.

As for me... This is personal opinion and may have been rendered incorrect within the comic universe. However, my view is that he is not evil, although he does view himself as such.

His second Herald (Silver Surfer) was not only given the chance to talk with Galactus to try to save his planet (Galactus being too weak to continue looking, he failed but still the point remains), and was given the opportunity to search out barren planets that had the energy Galactus needed.
Except for Earth (for whatever reason), Galactus has tried to eat only barren planets (going centuries without devouring a planet in order to do so).
He is also keeping Abraxas (who, I'll admit I know very little about) in check simply by existing, which he needs to feed in order to survive. So, not only is he surviving, he is keeping a danger to the multiverse in check by eating single planets.

This gets further supported (as does my other point) during the Secret Wars.

As I understood it, Beyonder used how they felt about themselves (hence why Magneto was a hero) - and Galactus was put with the villains.
However, when Galactus prepared to eat the Battleplanet, he warned Mr. Fantastic. Had he had the personality of any of the other villains there (or possibly Magneto even), he would not have warned any of the heroes.

Sorry Junderway. What I meant was that morality is a product of human culture and thought. Outside of human culture there is no good or evil. They are human terms and ideas. They are not written on the clouds or on planet Pluto or in the stars. We, humanity, are responsible for our morality and sense of justice/injustice. There is no objective universal force that hands these things down or that one can point to and say, "look, see".

Does human scum exist? Most certainly. But as the Bard once wrote, "nothing is good or evil, but thinking makes it so."

As I see it, specific actions that are considered good or evil can be caused by the culture and the person's natural disposition (by nature and by nurture). Which I think is what junderway is saying.

However, what is considered good or evil is by the culture. But the thing is that it's true for anything. Clouds, Pluto, scum, morality, roses, ideas may exist, but it's humans that give them these names. Which is what I think Powersurge is getting at.

So, as an example, giving food to someone that is starving. Most people would say that it is good.
But a society/person that believes that if you are unable to get the food then you are too weak to stay there - they might say that it is evil, because it allows someone that should be removed from the gene pool for being weak to stay.

Or on the other end, killing in our culture is considered evil. Except in certain circumstances, in which case it varies between perfectly fine to unfortunate but necessary.
And that's just with people...
Animals range all the way from 'who cares?' (even in very large numbers) to 'you should fry for this' (for a single).

If, while walking in the woods, a cougar leaps upon you and begins gnawing at your leg, is the cougar evil? If, while coming to resuce you, a bear leaps out and begins gnawing on your friend's head, is the bear evil?

Sadly, these analogies don't quite work -- cougars and bears aren't sapient, they aren't of the same level of intellect as humans. A more apt question is:

If, while stranded on a desert island, you are forced to kill and eat a dolphin, does that make you evil?

Humans are generally considered to be 'above' dolphins, but studies have shown dolphins to be remarkably clever critters. In a way, dolphins are to us as humans are to Galactus.

Dr Archeville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If, while walking in the woods, a cougar leaps
> upon you and begins gnawing at your leg, is the
> cougar evil?

My dear doctor,
It would depend upon which leg.
Respectfully,
Mark

"My parents went to The Secret Wars Battleworld and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt..."

I must commend all who have answered this thread,there have been very good points of view on this subject.:!)-D:.D

SO is the marvel being Death evil. She takes everyone not just the people galactus kills.

Death is only evil if you think death is evil.

The biggest load of crap in all Marvel's overwrought prose is the pronouncement "Galactus is beyond Good and Evil."

Comparing Galactus to a force of nature is vile sophistry. A tsunami is a brute force manifestation of physics. Unless AmerIndian concepts of manitous are correct, there is no consciousness guiding the tsunami.

Galactus is a sentient being who is aware he is preying on other sentient beings. He may even deign to have conversations with those he is about to eat. Of course, the conversation is usally summarized as "Look, I'm going to kill you, your entire race, and reduce your planet to rubble. Now go away and quit bothering me."
At best Galactus is the ultimate drug addict, finding it easier to keep fatally mugging old ladies than it is to actually go through rehab.

The worst thing about the Galactus hypocrisy at Marvel is the way it contrasts with the way Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix was treated. Jean accidentally caused a nova that consumed a planet, then defended herself against a starship that attacked her-- and Shooter ordered her death. And John "Company Man" Byrne drew the tale. But then a couple years later, the same John "Company Man" Byrne created "The Trial of Reed Richards" in which Galactus was officially given immunity for his ongoing genocidal crimes, past, present and future!

Spare me!

Now, as to who is more evil, Galactus or Thanos, it is a split decision. Thanos is not an addict so there is excuse for his genocidal preferences. Thanos actuially Is trying to be evil. But on the other hand, for all his bluster and bravado, Thanos is mostly a showoff, a poseur, a wannabe. Galactus, on average, kills thousands of sentient beings with every breath. He knows he does this and he does not care.

Anyway, that's my Monday rant.

Is Galactus really an addict if he's only doing what he needs to survive?

Galactus 1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This could be a heated topic but here
> goes.Galactus is my Favorite bad guy the comics
> portray him as a force of nature.It is said that
> one day he will give back to the universe more
> then he has taken.Now the question is,can you call
> him evil .In real life a being who kills millions
> would be evil on a larger scale then Hitler or
> Stalin.My own take is that he is evil killing
> untold Billions.Sometimes I wrestle with the moral
> implacations of liking a being who eats worlds for
> a living or for survial.This is comics its not
> real however it is still a good Question is
> Galactus evil.Galactus does not get a perverse
> pleasure out of killing like say Thanos does.Does
> that make a differance or not,what are your
> thoughts on this Topic comic book brethen


Yes, Galactus is evil. While it is not a sin to eat, Galactus kills billions when he does so. How can you justfy that? you can't. If Galactus was moral, he would starve.