The Moraility of Ender

[haas mark]

So he was programmed. He DID have a heart. You have to read the books AFTER that to see it.

[Patrick Degan]

So he was programmed. He DID have a heart. You have to read the books AFTER that to see it.

And Hitler loved his dogs. Big deal. Genocide is still genocide, and the heart of the guy who pushes the button doesn't erase that.

I did read the second Ender novel, and from what I got, Orson Scott Card tried having his cake and eating it too. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Once you kill a species (or a race), you can't unkill it later and make it all better. Card's morality in the books is very confused and it left a sour taste in my mouth.

[haas mark]

So he was programmed. He DID have a heart. You have to read the books AFTER that to see it.

And Hitler loved his dogs. Big deal. Genocide is still genocide, and the heart of the guy who pushes the button doesn't erase that.

I did read the second Ender novel, and from what I got, Orson Scott Card tried having his cake and eating it too. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Once you kill a species (or a race), you can't unkill it later and make it all better. Card's morality in the books is very confused and it left a sour taste in my mouth.

Well, then that's your opinion. And get it straight. Its Xenocide. You also have to read past the second book. He has a heart; he finds a place for the Hive Queen AND saves another planet, AND finds a lover, AND adopts kids. See how well THAT sits with you.

mew.

Yes, I am evil.

[haas mark]

Not to mention that he DIDN'T KNOW that he had done it for real, and that he DID feel remorse for it.

[Patrick Degan]

So he was programmed. He DID have a heart. You have to read the books AFTER that to see it.

And Hitler loved his dogs. Big deal. Genocide is still genocide, and the heart of the guy who pushes the button doesn't erase that.

I did read the second Ender novel, and from what I got, Orson Scott Card tried having his cake and eating it too. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Once you kill a species (or a race), you can't unkill it later and make it all better. Card's morality in the books is very confused and it left a sour taste in my mouth.

Well, then that's your opinion.

Yes, it is. Also happens to be the opinion of anybody who could see through Card's bullshit.

And get it straight. Its Xenocide.

Semantics.

You also have to read past the second book. He has a heart; he finds a place for the Hive Queen AND saves another planet, AND finds a lover, AND adopts kids. See how well THAT sits with you.

Trying to have your cake and eat it too. Killing off a whole race and unkilling them later. Committing genocide and having a normal life afterward. To my perspective, that sounds like a writer desperately trying to escape the dilemma of having staked himself to a morally untenable position in the first place.

[haas mark]

And Hitler loved his dogs. Big deal. Genocide is still genocide, and the heart of the guy who pushes the button doesn't erase that.

I did read the second Ender novel, and from what I got, Orson Scott Card tried having his cake and eating it too. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Once you kill a species (or a race), you can't unkill it later and make it all better. Card's morality in the books is very confused and it left a sour taste in my mouth.

Well, then that's your opinion.

Yes, it is. Also happens to be the opinion of anybody who could see through Card's bullshit.

And get it straight. Its Xenocide.

Semantics.

You also have to read past the second book. He has a heart; he finds a place for the Hive Queen AND saves another planet, AND finds a lover, AND adopts kids. See how well THAT sits with you.

Trying to have your cake and eat it too. Killing off a whole race and unkilling them later. Committing genocide and having a normal life afterward. To my perspective, that sounds like a writer desperately trying to escape the dilemma of having staked himself to a morally untenable position in the first place.

Did I not mention that HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND HE FELT REMORSE!?!?!?

[Patrick Degan]

Not to mention that he DIDN'T KNOW that he had done it for real, and that he DID feel remorse for it.

I could have accepted that IF Ender had committed suicide or simply had gone insane from the guilt of the act —and left it at that. Orson Scott Card however spent the two succeeding books (which came years apart) trying to justify it through the Appeal To Emotion argument. Remorse is fine, but some crimes cannot be washed away by any amount of remorse. We wouldn't forgive Adolf Eichmann on those grounds in the real world, and there's no real way to justify the concept of it in the pages of fiction either.

[haas mark]

Not to mention that he DIDN'T KNOW that he had done it for real, and that he DID feel remorse for it.

I could have accepted that IF Ender had committed suicide or simply had gone insane from the guilt of the act —and left it at that.

You are one SICK little guy, you know that?

Orson Scott Card however spent the two succeeding books (which came years apart) trying to justify it through the Appeal To Emotion argument. Remorse is fine, but some crimes cannot be washed away by any amount of remorse. We wouldn't forgive Adolf Eichmann on those grounds in the real world, and there's no real way to justify the concept of it in the pages of fiction either.

I see your point here, but this has veered WAAAY off-topic, so I think it best to drop it here. And Adolf Eichmann wasn't tried until the Nuremburg trials, giving him PLENTY of time to do whatever. And fiction is just that: fiction. Anything and everything can happen, anything and everything can apply.

[Patrick Degan]

Not to mention that he DIDN'T KNOW that he had done it for real, and that he DID feel remorse for it.

I could have accepted that IF Ender had committed suicide or simply had gone insane from the guilt of the act —and left it at that.

You are one SICK little guy, you know that?

I'm one sick little guy because I refuse to buy into bullshit justifications for exterminating an entire race? That's a novel point of view, I must say.

Orson Scott Card however spent the two succeeding books (which came years apart) trying to justify it through the Appeal To Emotion argument. Remorse is fine, but some crimes cannot be washed away by any amount of remorse. We wouldn't forgive Adolf Eichmann on those grounds in the real world, and there's no real way to justify the concept of it in the pages of fiction either.

I see your point here, but this has veered WAAAY off-topic, so I think it best to drop it here. And Adolf Eichmann wasn't tried until the Nuremburg trials, giving him PLENTY of time to do whatever.

Actually, Eichmann wasn't brought to justice until the Mossad caught up with him in Argentina in the 1960s. He tried the Nuremburg Defence, but the point is that even if Eichmann had felt remorse for his genocidal actions, we would not accept that as a defence in the real world. He'd still go to the scaffold.

And fiction is just that: fiction. Anything and everything can happen, anything and everything can apply.

Then I take it you had no problem with Capt. Archer refusing to give medical aid to billions of people after Dr. Phlox won him over to some bullshit argument about their extinction being part of Galactic Destiny on Boobyprise?

Fiction is also where we test moral and ethical ideas. Try applying justifications for genocide, either active or through depraved indifference, from any work of fiction to the real world. Do they still work?

[haas mark]

I'm one sick little guy because I refuse to buy into bullshit justifications for exterminating an entire race? That's a novel point of view, I must say.

whatever. Just because YOU refuse to see form others' point of views...

Actually, Eichmann wasn't brought to justice until the Mossad caught up with him in Argentina in the 1960s. He tried the Nuremburg Defence, but the point is that even if Eichmann had felt remorse for his genocidal actions, we would not accept that as a defence in the real world. He'd still go to the scaffold.

This IS the real world, I know.

Then I take it you had no problem with Capt. Archer refusing to give medical aid to billions of people after Dr. Phlox won him over to some bullshit argument about their extinction being part of Galactic Destiny on Boobyprise?

You just ASSUME that I have read/watched this. I have no clue what you ar etalking about.

Fiction is also where we test moral and ethical ideas. Try applying justifications for genocide, either active or through depraved indifference, from any work of fiction to the real world. Do they still work?

It is possible, in fiction. Anything and everything is possible in fiction. Thusly, you force me to reiterate.

mew.

Yes, I am evil.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm one sick little guy because I refuse to buy into bullshit justifications for exterminating an entire race? That's a novel point of view, I must say.

whatever. Just because YOU refuse to see form others' point of views...

I can certainly see bullshit for what it is.

Actually, Eichmann wasn't brought to justice until the Mossad caught up with him in Argentina in the 1960s. He tried the Nuremburg Defence, but the point is that even if Eichmann had felt remorse for his genocidal actions, we would not accept that as a defence in the real world. He'd still go to the scaffold.

This IS the real world, I know.

And so... you can't recognise an ethical dilemma when it's presented to you?

Then I take it you had no problem with Capt. Archer refusing to give medical aid to billions of people after Dr. Phlox won him over to some bullshit argument about their extinction being part of Galactic Destiny on Boobyprise?

You just ASSUME that I have read/watched this. I have no clue what you are talking about.

Oh, for fuck's sake! EVEN if you've never seen the episode in question, surely you can form an opinion about the purported hero of an Earth ship on a major television series deciding to allow an entire race to die because of some horseshit argument about it being part of the Galactic Destiny! Or can't you?

Fiction is also where we test moral and ethical ideas. Try applying justifications for genocide, either active or through depraved indifference, from any work of fiction to the real world. Do they still work?

It is possible, in fiction. Anything and everything is possible in fiction. Thusly, you force me to reiterate.

In a word, bullshit. Anybody who has a clue about the difference between right and wrong can see immediately what's inherently wrong about attempting to justify the annihilation of an entire race.

[haas mark]

Back to the fight, I have to say Ender will probably take this one. The only arena Thrawn can be him in is overall strategy, Ender would win every battle but he never handled things like logistics or overall psychology and there he could lose.

For somebody who's never actually been on a battlefield, psychology would ensure that you get killed. Running a simulator is not the same thing as being in the cockpit.

In a straight up fight Thrawn's dead meat. Thrawn would probably lose to most members of Ender's Jefe, Bean or Achilles would definetly take him and probably the others as well.

When you can demonstrate that being in a nice, safe simulator or console room is the same as being in a fighter cockpit or a starship deck, I might change my mind.

Ender does have plenty of hands-on experience. In brutal simulations he had to invent new tactics on the fly repeatedly, and still won through innovation. He also ran an entire battle campaign and won every single fight against the Buggers. Those weren't book knowledge, those weren't simulations (though he thought they were). Those were real battles against a cunning adaptive foe. Every tactic he used, the Buggers immediately developed a counter-measure for so that it could never use it again. And this was Ender when he was stressed out and half-sick.

Ender was never in a cockpit with actual living pilots swarming around him trying to turn him into a little pink cloud. One turbolaser hit and he never gets a chance to develop any sort of countermeasure. He's dead.

Lest we forget, he was really controlling the entire human space fleet.

[haas mark]

I'm one sick little guy because I refuse to buy into bullshit justifications for exterminating an entire race? That's a novel point of view, I must say.

whatever. Just because YOU refuse to see form others' point of views...

I can certainly see bullshit for what it is.

Actually, Eichmann wasn't brought to justice until the Mossad caught up with him in Argentina in the 1960s. He tried the Nuremburg Defence, but the point is that even if Eichmann had felt remorse for his genocidal actions, we would not accept that as a defence in the real world. He'd still go to the scaffold.

This IS the real world, I know.

And so... you can't recognise an ethical dilemma when it's presented to you?

Then I take it you had no problem with Capt. Archer refusing to give medical aid to billions of people after Dr. Phlox won him over to some bullshit argument about their extinction being part of Galactic Destiny on Boobyprise?

You just ASSUME that I have read/watched this. I have no clue what you are talking about.

Oh, for fuck's sake! EVEN if you've never seen the episode in question, surely you can form an opinion about the purported hero of an Earth ship on a major television series deciding to allow an entire race to die because of some horseshit argument about it being part of the Galactic Destiny! Or can't you?

Not when we have varying opinions of what is "bullshit"

Fiction is also where we test moral and ethical ideas. Try applying justifications for genocide, either active or through depraved indifference, from any work of fiction to the real world. Do they still work?

It is possible, in fiction. Anything and everything is possible in fiction. Thusly, you force me to reiterate.

In a word, bullshit. Anybody who has a clue about the difference between right and wrong can see immediately what's inherently wrong about attempting to justify the annihilation of an entire race.

Again, you just can't see things from my perspective. I see how you can think it is utter tripe, but you continually reefuse to even try to see it from my point of vioew, to try to see that I think that his tactics are well-justified, and that the novels were well-written. And if you though the first book was complete trash, why did you even bother going on to read the second one?

[Patrick Degan]

Lest we forget, he was really controlling the entire human space fleet.

A fact he was quite unaware of, since it was set up on a simulator console, and thus removed him from the actual experience of the battlefield or awareness of the stakes involved.

[haas mark]

Lest we forget, he was really controlling the entire human space fleet.

A fact he was quite unaware of, since it was set up on a simulator console, and thus removed him from the actual experience of the battlefield or awareness of the stakes involved.

I know. SO therefore, he COULD NOT have had the moral allegations you present against him be true. You have just caught yourself in your ownn words.

[Patrick Degan]

I can certainly see bullshit for what it is.

Not when we have varying opinions of what is "bullshit"

Hmm, let's see... There are those who see and smell the bullshit and have the opinion that it is Something Awful. Then there are those who have the opinion that we can pretend it has the gentle fragrance of lilacs. Usually, we adjudge the latter group to have the more tenuous grip on reality.

Fiction is also where we test moral and ethical ideas. Try applying justifications for genocide, either active or through depraved indifference, from any work of fiction to the real world. Do they still work?

It is possible, in fiction. Anything and everything is possible in fiction. Thusly, you force me to reiterate.

In a word, bullshit. Anybody who has a clue about the difference between right and wrong can see immediately what's inherently wrong about attempting to justify the annihilation of an entire race.

Again, you just can't see things from my perspective. I see how you can think it is utter tripe, but you continually reefuse to even try to see it from my point of view, to try to see that I think that his tactics are well-justified, and that the novels were well-written.[/quote]

Unfortunately, I can't force myself to see things which simply aren't there, no matter how much another may believe otherwise. I can't force myself to agree with a tactic which justifies genocide, nor can I agree that a novel with so many plot holes and plausibility problems that you could sail a whole warfleet through them comfortably can be described as "well written".

And if you though the first book was complete trash, why did you even bother going on to read the second one?

I was the reviewer for this book and Speaker For The Dead for my university SF club's newsletter and later found myself smack in a similar debate. I had to read both works to form a competent opinion to back my argument.

[haas mark]

I can certainly see bullshit for what it is.

Not when we have varying opinions of what is "bullshit"

Hmm, let's see... There are those who see and smell the bullshit and have the opinion that it is Something Awful. Then there are those who have the opinion that we can pretend it has the gentle fragrance of lilacs. Usually, we adjudge the latter group to have the more tenuous grip on reality.

Again, we have different viewpoints on what is bullshit. I don;t think that this is bullshit. You just happen not to like it.

In a word, bullshit. Anybody who has a clue about the difference between right and wrong can see immediately what's inherently wrong about attempting to justify the annihilation of an entire race.

Again, you just can't see things from my perspective. I see how you can think it is utter tripe, but you continually reefuse to even try to see it from my point of view, to try to see that I think that his tactics are well-justified, and that the novels were well-written.

Unfortunately, I can't force myself to see things which simply aren't there, no matter how much another may believe otherwise. I can't force myself to agree with a tactic which justifies genocide, nor can I agree that a novel with so many plot holes and plausibility problems that you could sail a whole warfleet through them comfortably can be described as "well written".

So I am not allowed to have an opinion? I DONT'T have an opinion??? What is this crap you speak? I can't say that the books were well-written? I think you have some issues to deal with.

And if you though the first book was complete trash, why did you even bother going on to read the second one?

I was the reviewer for this book and Speaker For The Dead for my university SF club's newsletter and later found myself smack in a similar debate. I had to read both works to form a competent opinion to back my argument.

Ah, and what was the result of the argument? And if you read the first two, you should have at least attempted Xenocide, which is where I get some of my own arguments.

[Patrick Degan]

Lest we forget, he was really controlling the entire human space fleet.

A fact he was quite unaware of, since it was set up on a simulator console, and thus removed him from the actual experience of the battlefield or awareness of the stakes involved.

I know. SO therefore, he COULD NOT have had the moral allegations you present against him be true. You have just caught yourself in your own words.

Nice try. But the moral allegations I present are far more against Orson Scott Card and the entire premise he attempts to argue than against his specific protagonist, Ender Wiggin, who I said upfront was a pathetic, brainwashed kid.

[haas mark]

A fact he was quite unaware of, since it was set up on a simulator console, and thus removed him from the actual experience of the battlefield or awareness of the stakes involved.

I know. SO therefore, he COULD NOT have had the moral allegations you present against him be true. You have just caught yourself in your own words.

Nice try. But the moral allegations I present are far more against Orson Scott Card and the entire premise he attempts to argue than against his specific protagonist, Ender Wiggin, who I said upfront was a pathetic, brainwashed kid.

Hmph. At this point we have been arguing the morality of Ender himself, why do you bring this up?

[Patrick Degan]

I was the reviewer for this book and Speaker For The Dead for my university SF club's newsletter and later found myself smack in a similar debate. I had to read both works to form a competent opinion to back my argument.

Ah, and what was the result of the argument?

I won.

And if you read the first two, you should have at least attempted Xenocide, which is where I get some of my own arguments.

The first two books came out in the 80s and there was a ten year gap between Speaker For The Dead and Xenocide. By then, I had long moved on from the subject of Ender Wiggin.

[haas mark]

I was the reviewer for this book and Speaker For The Dead for my university SF club's newsletter and later found myself smack in a similar debate. I had to read both works to form a competent opinion to back my argument.

Ah, and what was the result of the argument?

I won.

Hmph. Snot.

And if you read the first two, you should have at least attempted Xenocide, which is where I get some of my own arguments.

The first two books came out in the 80s and there was a ten year gap between Speaker For The Dead and Xenocide. By then, I had long moved on from the subject of Ender Wiggin.

Touche.

[Patrick Degan]

Nice try. But the moral allegations I present are far more against Orson Scott Card and the entire premise he attempts to argue than against his specific protagonist, Ender Wiggin, who I said upfront was a pathetic, brainwashed kid.

Hmph. At this point we have been arguing the morality of Ender himself, why do you bring this up?

No, we were arguing the morality of Card's entire thesis. You chose to interpret this as an argument specifically resting upon the shoulders of Ender. Ender is Card's protagonist and essentially his tool in advancing an at-best questionable proposition. On those grounds is there any blurring of the lines which is unavoidable, but the specific character is not my specific focus in this aspect of the debate.

[haas mark]

Nice try. But the moral allegations I present are far more against Orson Scott Card and the entire premise he attempts to argue than against his specific protagonist, Ender Wiggin, who I said upfront was a pathetic, brainwashed kid.

Hmph. At this point we have been arguing the morality of Ender himself, why do you bring this up?

No, we were arguing the morality of Card's entire thesis. You chose to interpret this as an argument specifically resting upon the shoulders of Ender. Ender is Card's protagonist and essentially his tool in advancing an at-best questionable proposition. On those grounds is there any blurring of the lines which is unavoidable, but the specific character is not my specific focus in this aspect of the debate.

No, we moved form debating Card's morality to debating Ender's.

[Stormbringer]

Degan, in what way is the morality of OSC questionable? And how exactly is Ender morally at fault for what happened to the Buggers?

[Patrick Degan]

No, we were arguing the morality of Card's entire thesis. You chose to interpret this as an argument specifically resting upon the shoulders of Ender. Ender is Card's protagonist and essentially his tool in advancing an at-best questionable proposition. On those grounds is there any blurring of the lines which is unavoidable, but the specific character is not my specific focus in this aspect of the debate.

No, we moved form debating Card's morality to debating Ender's.

Oh, and just when did we do that, exactly?