The Moraility of Ender

[Patrick Degan]

OK, time to strip out Patrick's strawman bullshit (i.e. completely missing the point of the cop/maniac analogy, extending it in all sorts of ways which I never supported,

YOUR strawman bullshit, don't you mean, Nick? It was YOU who tried to equate a cop defending his own life with the principle of committing defensive genocide.

as well as claiming 'circumstances justifying xenocide are remotely conceivable' is the same as 'genocide of other human groups is OK'), consolidate and summarise. . .

You keep pretending that there is a substantive difference. There isn't.

Your (Patrick's) viewpoint:
Starting from the premise that systematically destroying another group (another species, or a sub-group of your own species) is not only always morally wrong, but can in fact never ever be justified at all, you see Ender's Game as reprehensible because it sets out to contrive a situation where xenocide is seen as an unfortunate necessity.

No, I find it reprehensible on First Principles; also because OSC totally failed to consider any other alternative which his own plot affords but which he either didn't want to consider to make an illegitimate argument in the first place or because he is simply a piss-poor writer.

My viewpoint:
Patrick, the part of your stance I have a problem with is the never ever part. You assume it is true, and immediately switch off the analytical part of your brain with respect to that assumption. When someone challenges you, all you are left with is mindlessly repeating "xenocide is never acceptable", "xenocide is never acceptable, "xenocide is never acceptable" like a goddamn broken record.

(this part edited for typos)
Gee, I guess it's not acceptable for the same reason raping children is never acceptable or shooting people at random is never acceptable or shoving people into ovens is never acceptable. It's called a Moral Principle. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand what one of those actually is.

Verilon and I, along with Orson Scott Card, keep the analytical parts of our brain engaged, and ask the following questions:

Amusing. If that's what you wish to call the peculiar mental process which finds genocide an acceptable alternative, be my guest.

*"Is it even remotely conceivable that in very restricted circumstances, xenocide might be considered as a viable course of action?"

No.

This is the real sticking point - we question an assumption that you believe to be self-evident, and you are left with nothing other than repeating "it's self-evident". If it was really self-evident, we wouldn't be having this argument.

We keep having this argument because you've swallowed Orson Scott Card's bullshit hook, line, and sinker. You keep missing the point: trying to dredge up an argument which justifies genocide as an acceptable solution to a war is illegitimate from the get-go. And in addition, the conditions of OSC's OWN DAMN PLOT undermines his own thesis. Doesn't it even bother you that one of the principle arguments you've been making in support of Card's view —that communication was impossible, therefore no negotiation was possible, therefore genocide— is destroyed in the book by the Hive Queen's telepathic exchange with Ender?

So, what do I think the conditions justifying xenocide might start to look like? Well, the following is a starter list - I suspect an actual collection of all of the conditions might be even more stringent:
*The enemy constitute a clear and present danger to the survival of the human species.

Which in and of itself does not justify genocide.

*The enemy have not displayed any characteristics which might be taken to indicate a willingness to negotiate or compromise.

Which also does not justify genocide. The Nazis weren't willing to negotiate or compromise either.

All attempts at establishing any form of communication have failed.

Which is why you keep trying to do so. It is certainly not physically impossible.

*Any and all available defensive strategies have an unacceptably high probability of failure.

In other words, building up your home system defences to an overkill level has an unacceptably high probability of failure?

*Any and all available containment strategies have an unacceptably high probability of failure.

THEY have got to come to US, across interstellar distances. Containment doesn't enter into the picture in the paradigm of a space war.

*Any and all limited offensive strategies have an unacceptably high probability of failure.

Which leaves either building up forces sufficent to conduct an all-out offensive or building up your in-system defences to inflict an unacceptably high cost in blood for the enemy warfleet.

An all out offensive (potentially resulting in racial destruction) has a lower probability of failure than any of the other strategies.

Ah. Simply bombing their planet into the Stone Age, leaving the aliens without the means any longer to even build steam engines much less field warfleets, cannot achieve the aim of removing the alien threat?

This is a far cry from your strawman distortion of 'justifying genocide'. It is, in fact, the exact same list of criteria used on a person-to-person level by the cop who decides to shoot the maniac. A cop shooting an offender will shoot for the chest - getting fancy and trying to hit the gun or a limb is seen as unnecessarily chancy.

And we're right back to your bullshit false analogy of the cop and the maniac, aren't we? To even pretend that there is an equation here is beyond ludicrous. I've already outlined the concept of proportional response, which you simply decide to dismiss as a strawman. Your genocide test fails on the grounds of proportional response to threat

No instance of attempted genocide in recorded history has met even one of those criteria. By questioning our assumptions, we are in a stronger position to vilify genocide, because we can point to the fact that not one of my criteria could possibly be meant by combatants of the same species.

No, you just keep making the same simplistic argument that because it's Aliens, it's not genocide.

In Ender's Game, OSC set out to satisfy those criteria by constructing an enemy with orthogonal sensory apparatus, and an industrial output which exceeded that of humanity by several planets to one. He succeeded well enough that he actually makes a plausible case for justifiable xenocide. Whether the situation in Ender's game actually satisfied them. . . well, if the answer to a moral question is obvious, it is hardly worthy of the name "moral dilemna" is it?

If that were even remotely true, then Card wouldn't have been trying to make a huuuuuuge play of justifying the argument of his first book in the succeeding book. The fact that Card has to write a scene where the Hive Queen tell Ender that she understands and forgives him for wiping out her entire race says that either Card doesn't really believe his own thesis, or he knows that it can't withstand close examination so he's going to try to pretend that forgiveness from the victims makes everything all better.

And as far as the Bugger industrial capacity was concerned: the fact remains that, at STL velocities, the entire force of the Bugger war machine would not be hitting Earth all at once. The fact that they evidently were not able to hit Earth with everything they had in either attack wave points to that.

In the real world (without OSC's weird philotic physics), orthogonal sensory apparatus is highly unlikely. However, a scenario where communication is impossible simply because the other side isn't interested in listening is a remote possibility.

Pity that the Hive Queen making telepathic contact with Ender destroys that theory. Pity that Joe Haldeman dealt with a more or less similar situation in his own novel The Forever War and did so far more intelligently. Funny, you came to this whole "aliens who won't communicate" argument because you really couldn't answer the argument that a means of communcation was possible when you denied any such thing earlier in the course of your challenge.

That's called changing the rules in the middle of the game.

[haas mark]

YOUR strawman bullshit,

And you tell me that you don't cuss. Ha!

[Patrick Degan]

There is one other tangent I'd like to follow up. . .

Look at the preceding paragraph Patrick - we are not talking about the electromagnetic spectrum here.

Um, you are aware that radio is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, aren't you?

Why yes, I am indeed aware of a great many things to do with elementary physics. Perhaps you would care to actually read the fucking question:

Or are you asserting that it is impossible to develop spacefaring levels of intelligence without also generalising your sense of morality beyond your own species?

Stumbling across radio communication is unavoidable in any developing science aimed toward artificial power generation and ultimately spaceflight.

In the real world, yes. In the universe of Ender's Game, no. (orthogonal sensory apparatus, remember?)

I will at this point simply assume that you're scientific education is lacking.

[haas mark]

Oh, and Degan: You assume WAY too much.

[Oddity]

I am somewhat at a loss here...

Exactly where does Ender commit genocide \ xenocide \ whatever?
One hive queen survived, right?

[haas mark]

I am somewhat at a loss here...

Exactly where does Ender commit genocide \ xenocide \ whatever?
One hive queen survived, right?

When he used the Little Doctor....to commit it does not necessarily equate pulling it off entirely. To this day, we consider Hitler to have committed genocide.

[Nick]

OK, I officially give up, Patrick.

Your unassailable wall of ignorance has defeated me.

You say "never ever, in 100% of all cases"

I say, "maybe, just possibly, in truly unlikely circumstances which have never even come close to be satisfied on Earth, and with any luck will never occur at any time during human existence"

At which point, you merely repeat your original assertion of 'never ever', and claim that I am somehow making an argument which condones Nazi atrocities.

You are trying to prove a negative, and can't see how this stance is logically flawed.

It is exactly like the pacifists who say "killing is never justifiable" - the cop is the counter example to their argument, which presents the list of conditions which would need to be satisified before killing is justifiable. This is the point of my cop analogy - not the other bizarre interpretations you have tried to place on it.

You are confusing the position of "extraordinarily unlikely" (which is logically defensible) with the position of "absolutely 100% impossible" (which is indefensible, because our knowledge is incomplete).

That is the only point of contention between us - and it is this hole in your reasoning which prevents you from thinking, "Maybe, just maybe, the human military in Ender's game really did have no other choice." It is this which prompts you to assume that all sorts of other strategies could have worked, even though military professionals, actually in that situation, decided those options were not viable.

At this point, you choose to say "Well, I have a better understanding of STL travel than Orson Scott Card, so I am justified in claiming that this is all bullshit". I (and Verilon) say, "Well, by the rules of suspension of disbelief, I am going to say that the human military knew more about the situation than I do, as I am seeing it only through the very narrow filter of a single story. Rather than arrogantly assuming that, with my limited knowledge, I am better positioned to make a moral judgment, I am, instead, going to concede my ignorance and say 'Maybe they had good reasons for what they did. Maybe, if I had access to all the information they did, I would do the same thing. Then again, maybe I wouldn't. However, I don't have access to all that information, so I guess I will never truly know whether or not the situation justified their actions.'"

[Nick]

Why yes, I am indeed aware of a great many things to do with elementary physics. Perhaps you would care to actually read the fucking question:

Or are you asserting that it is impossible to develop spacefaring levels of intelligence without also generalising your sense of morality beyond your own species?

You still haven't answered this question, Patrick. And remember, you have adopted the stance that the conditions justifying xenocide are impossible to satisfy, not merely extraordinarily unlikely (as I claim).

This is you whole problem - you have adopted a logically untenable position of absolute 100% impossiblity, in all possible situations. Given that people Verilon, OSC and myself are able to conjecture the existence of aliens whose very being is utterly inimical to the ongoing existence of the human species, and to construct scenarios whereby humanity's options are limited to "annihilate or be annihilated", this threatens your position of 100% impossibility.

Because you have staked out this untenable position, it is not enough for you to point out that the scenarios we suggest are extremely contrived or unlikely. We know they are contrived - we invented them after all. But, to support your position instead of ours, you must demonstrate that these scenarios are impossible, rather than merely extremely unlikely.

You are trying to prove a negative from limited knowledge - and it can't be done.

Stumbling across radio communication is unavoidable in any developing science aimed toward artificial power generation and ultimately spaceflight.

In the real world, yes. In the universe of Ender's Game, no. (orthogonal sensory apparatus, remember?)

I will at this point simply assume that you're scientific education is lacking.

No, your understanding of the physics of Ender's Universe is lacking. As I stated, if we are talking about the real world, I agree with you.

[Patrick Degan]

OK, I officially give up, Patrick. Your unassailable wall of ignorance has defeated me.

Tear down your own walls of ignorance before presuming to comment on anyone else's, Nick.

You say "never ever, in 100% of all cases". I say, "maybe, just possibly, in truly unlikely circumstances which have never even come close to be satisfied on Earth, and with any luck will never occur at any time during human existence". At which point, you merely repeat your original assertion of 'never ever', and claim that I am somehow making an argument which condones Nazi atrocities.

Red Herring fallacy. It is not that you are making an argument condoning Nazi atrocities per-se. It is you pretending that you can make a differentiation regarding a fundamental moral wrong —a differentiation which simply does not exist. And unfortunately, making that differentiation involves falling back upon the same flawed reasoning process by which the Nazis justified themselves. They didn't think they were the bad guys either.

You are trying to prove a negative, and can't see how this stance is logically flawed.

No, you are attempting to deny what is a moral wrong by hiding behind semantics.

It is exactly like the pacifists who say "killing is never justifiable" - the cop is the counter example to their argument, which presents the list of conditions which would need to be satisified before killing is justifiable. This is the point of my cop analogy - not the other bizarre interpretations you have tried to place on it.

False Dilemma fallacy —to be opposed to genocide is not to be automatically a doctrinaire pacifist. At no point have I argued that deadly force in self-defence is never justifiable. But you simply refuse to see any middle ground between A and B and pretend that any self-defence situation can be equated regardless of scale of threat and proportionality of response. It is you who makes the bizarre assertion that any self-defence situation can be equated with committing preemptive genocide; an assertion which is false on its face.

You are confusing the position of "extraordinarily unlikely" (which is logically defensible) with the position of "absolutely 100% impossible" (which is indefensible, because our knowledge is incomplete).

We're not talking about scientific or mathematical proofs. We're talking about moral principles and proportionality.

That is the only point of contention between us - and it is this hole in your reasoning which prevents you from thinking, "Maybe, just maybe, the human military in Ender's game really did have no other choice." It is this which prompts you to assume that all sorts of other strategies could have worked, even though military professionals, actually in that situation, decided those options were not viable.

A laughable assertion coming from somebody who refuses to even consider a middle ground between A and B and defends that position with false analogies between situations which have no equal basis for comparison. And once more, it is not my fault that Orson Scott Card created an Earth military leadership composed of idiots. I've pointed out alternative strategies because they counter your continued assertion that no other strategy was viable. You say that there was no recourse but genocide because genocide was the only possible recourse. Circular reasoning if ever I saw it.

At this point, you choose to say "Well, I have a better understanding of STL travel than Orson Scott Card, so I am justified in claiming that this is all bullshit".

In case you've missed the whole point of this website, I will remind you that one of its purposes, its raison d'etré, is the examination of observed phenomena and physical operations depicted in science fiction in terms of the scientific method and judgement of same in terms with their degree of fidelity to scientific realism. This is why we can kick Star Trek: Voyager for its ludicrous technobabble and for airing truly idiotic concepts such as deuterium ore or "cracks" in a black hole's event horizon. And in case you haven't been paying attention, my objections in terms of OSC's carelessness regarding relativity and technology have formed only part of my case against his book and have been used mainly to knock down several of your own arguments point by specific point.

I (and Verilon) say, "Well, by the rules of suspension of disbelief, I am going to say that the human military knew more about the situation than I do, as I am seeing it only through the very narrow filter of a single story. Rather than arrogantly assuming that, with my limited knowledge, I am better positioned to make a moral judgment, I am, instead, going to concede my ignorance and say 'Maybe they had good reasons for what they did. Maybe, if I had access to all the information they did, I would do the same thing. Then again, maybe I wouldn't. However, I don't have access to all that information, so I guess I will never truly know whether or not the situation justified their actions.'"

What the fuck are you babbling about?! "Maybe if I had access to all their infomation"? ALL THE INFORMATION IS RIGHT THERE IN THE GODDAMN BOOK! All of it. There IS nothing more by which we can asses the plot and its solution. Now you're making a blatant Appeal to Ignorance —we can't judge the situation because we can't know whatever Orson Scott Card didn't write in his book which motivated the characters. That, frankly, is insane. It's also about as dishonest a dodge as you can resort to.

Do you think that OSC is concealing information from the readers? His characters are meeting in secret rooms while we're not turning the pages? Mazar Rackham and the other generals are sharing information kept top-secret classified from the rest of us, who by virtue of being the readers are by defintion occupying a God's eye view of Ender's universe —from which nothing can conceivably be hidden?!

Amazing. First you attempted to argue that genocide was inevitable because communciation was impossible between the two species. When I pointed out two possible avenues for contact (and one of them provided directly by the book), you then fell back upon genocide being the only viable combat strategy. When I point out the holes in that argument, you fell back upon the smokescreen of semantics to create a non-existent difference in the nature of the crime being discussed. When that fails, you're down to invoking false analogies between two situations so totally unrelated in scale that it boggles the mind. Now, you're down to invoking Mysterious Unknown Evidence that we cannot conceivably examine which supposedly makes any judgement impossible.

Sorry, Nick, but you're not getting away with that one. If the core of your entire position is a blatant Appeal to Ignorance, then your position has no legitimate defence.