The Moraility of Ender

[haas mark]

When did I ever say that I would turn away from real life genocide. ANd my "semantics," as you put them are not semantics. There is a key difference in the meanings of the words. What race are we talking about in these books? We are speaking in terms of species.

You keep pretending that there is a meaningful difference between "genocide" and "xenocide"; simply because we're talking about an "alien" race. Nevermind that all any SF alien amounts to is a metaphorical symbol. We're still talking about the extermination of an entire race.

The proper term would be species. A race is more like black, white, Jewish, Catholic, gay, straight. THat kind of thing. But I see the point you are trying to make.

In the years immediately following the Second World War, anybody who would have publicly proposed the idea of defensive genocide, even by the most subtle formulation, would have been adjuged a lunatic or a moral imbecile and his credibility destroyed on the spot. I've run into too many people who can now loan credence to such an abominable proposition and this in the last ten years. Most of them, I have found, have zero idea what they're talking about and even less idea of the implications of what they are attempting to justify.

We're not here to debate WWII. Point dropped.

Red Herring fallacy. That was not my intention in raising that particular point. My meaning was to demonstrate growing intellectual laziness over what should be clear-cut issues.

What point of view is there that justifies genocide?

Apparently, mine.

In other words, none. You can't justify a fundamental wrong.

This tell me that you think I don't have a point of view.

Appeal to Authority fallacy. I can tell you right now that mere trophies don't impress me. Particularly from an awards process which is about as political as any awards process. Orson Scott Card's trophies have nothing to do with any debate regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the novel and its ideas.

So trophies don't impress you. They don't impress me.

Then you had no point in invoking them, other than to try an Appeal to Authority argument.

And trophies do have plenty to do with merit: they are a sign of merit.

As you wish.

Point taken.

Please tell me one book you liked, and I may judge it in the same way, provided I had read it. Rather, a list of books, considering I may not have read all the same.

My reading list, sir, is not material to this discussion.

Oh? Ender's Game isn't on your reading list? You've read it haven't you? It's all the same argument, I could say that the book was utter tripe, and have it be my opinion, because I thought the morals were way off-key. This is what you're doing to Ender's Game.

Also: Pull out one point at a time. I am only going to debate from one stance at a time. You see already that I can't go from multiple angles at once; if this were a debate in life, we wouldn't be going off on more than one point at a time (necessarily).

Style over Substance fallacy.

So can we go one point at a time, or no?

Lastly: Genocide is not Xenocide, and if you refuse to make a fair claim as to why it is so impossible to use that x key instead of the g key, then, I don't see what the point of debating some of this is. No, this is not semantics, there is a valid point behind it. It is that xenocide is dealing with an entire species (as in Ender's game), where genocide is dealing with a group of that species (as in WWII). Collectively, we can call the entire species a "group" of the species, but in the end, it is still xenocide.

Now you're down to picking gnatshit out of pepper, Verilon. As I've said, we're still talking about justifying the annihilation of an entire people. Trying semantical trickery to avoid the implications of the point you've staked yourself out to defend avails you no quarter on this.

Annihilation of a species. And I'd like you to point out how...as I have said before, you are older, and more experienced at debate than I, so some help along the way in telling me what I did wrong would be nice, instead of just saying that I'm wrong. You are telling me that I am wrong because you say so. I am at least trying (albeit falsely, in your opinion) to back up my claims that I am correct. And I'm not avoiding the point, I'm simply pointing out that xenocide does not equal genocide on any scale.

[Patrick Degan]

In the years immediately following the Second World War, anybody who would have publicly proposed the idea of defensive genocide, even by the most subtle formulation, would have been adjuged a lunatic or a moral imbecile and his credibility destroyed on the spot.

The validity of that statement rather depends on if the 1950s count as 'immediately following' WWII and if nuclear strikes conducted against population centers can be regarded as acts of genocide.

The validity of the statement has nothing to do with the era to which it refers, and as horrendous as nuclear war would have been, it would not have been the same as the deliberately planned murder of a specific targeted race or nationality.

You appear rather quick to dissmiss Ender's Game as a work promoting or excusing genocide, and, for that matter, to suggest that Card holds similar views. This is rather akin to suggesting that The Handmaid's Tale is a work promoting Christian fundamentism or that 1984 is a work promoting Palladium/ubiquitous law enforcement. It is not necessary to point out the errors in such interpretations.

Orson Scott Card essentially wrote himself into a corner by staking out a justification for a morally untenable position, and has spent the subsequent books in the Ender series desperately trying to write his way out of it by positing the notion that you can kill off an entire race and "unkill" them later to make it all better. By contrast, The Handmaid's Tale and 1984 are rather unambiguous on the attacks they launch against the ideologies featured in each work. Nobody could fail to detect the anti-Fundamentalist bias of the former and the latter is certainly recognised as one of the most anti-authoritarian pieces of literature of the 20th century.

If Mr. Card is not pro-genocide nor a moral imbecile, then this leaves the only remaining possibility: that he is simply a sloppy writer who didn't think through the implications of his plot and is now trapped into trying to wallpaper over his mistake, for which a lot of trees have died over the intervening years.

[haas mark]

If Mr. Card is not pro-genocide nor a moral imbecile, then this leaves the only remaining possibility: that he is simply a sloppy writer who didn't think through the implications of his plot and is now trapped into trying to wallpaper over his mistake, for which a lot of trees have died over the intervening years.

This is true, and I see your point (as well as in the preceding paragraph), but that doesn't deteriorate that some people (myself included) actually liked the book, and your argument is not going to change that.

[Patrick Degan]

What point of view is there that justifies genocide?

Apparently, mine.

In other words, none. You can't justify a fundamental wrong.[/quote]

This tell me that you think I don't have a point of view.[/quote]

Then are you attempting to stake out a position that exterminating an entire intelligent race is justifiable?

Please tell me one book you liked, and I may judge it in the same way, provided I had read it. Rather, a list of books, considering I may not have read all the same.

My reading list, sir, is not material to this discussion.

Oh? Ender's Game isn't on your reading list? You've read it haven't you? It's all the same argument, I could say that the book was utter tripe, and have it be my opinion, because I thought the morals were way off-key. This is what you're doing to Ender's Game.[/quote]

The subject of this entire debate is Ender's Game. Not what I read. The challenge is to defend the book's merits, not to invoke irrelevant arguments not connected to the debate.

Annihilation of a species. And I'd like you to point out how...as I have said before, you are older, and more experienced at debate than I, so some help along the way in telling me what I did wrong would be nice, instead of just saying that I'm wrong. You are telling me that I am wrong because you say so. I am at least trying (albeit falsely, in your opinion) to back up my claims that I am correct. And I'm not avoiding the point, I'm simply pointing out that xenocide does not equal genocide on any scale.

I have spent several posts, in long detail, pointing out the error of your position. You fail to recognise that there is no practical difference between the terms "genocide" and "xenocide", since the action in question is still one of annihilating an entire intelligent people. Resorts to semantical nitpicking are of no value, since the attempt to make a distinction on the grounds of species still does not erase the nature of the act itself.

I have, for my part, pointed out the fundamental observation that aliens in science fiction are devices; metaphorical representations of different human cultures or aspects of human nature/psychology —which is all they can ever be to present something recognisable to the reader. Another reason why the distinction you keep trying to invoke is a smokescreen.

[Patrick Degan]

If Mr. Card is not pro-genocide nor a moral imbecile, then this leaves the only remaining possibility: that he is simply a sloppy writer who didn't think through the implications of his plot and is now trapped into trying to wallpaper over his mistake, for which a lot of trees have died over the intervening years.

This is true, and I see your point (as well as in the preceding paragraph), but that doesn't deteriorate that some people (myself included) actually liked the book, and your argument is not going to change that.

Well, in that case, it comes down to the futile exercise of attempting to debate subjective opinion, which is not really feasible. Taste is always subjective.

But hopefully, you may think through the implications a little harder and apply a more critical eye in future.

[haas mark]

If Mr. Card is not pro-genocide nor a moral imbecile, then this leaves the only remaining possibility: that he is simply a sloppy writer who didn't think through the implications of his plot and is now trapped into trying to wallpaper over his mistake, for which a lot of trees have died over the intervening years.

This is true, and I see your point (as well as in the preceding paragraph), but that doesn't deteriorate that some people (myself included) actually liked the book, and your argument is not going to change that.

Well, in that case, it comes down to the futile exercise of attempting to debate subjective opinion, which is not really feasible. Taste is always subjective.

But hopefully, you may think through the implications a little harder and apply a more critical eye in future.

And I will....I see how you think that gen/xenocide (Yes, I am still annoyed by that....but I decided to give it up because you can't look at a dictionary...apology for the ad hominem...my point is dropped) is immoral, even in fiction. I hope that you, too will take a freer look at things, and not be so critical about a book that is there for enjopyment. I have a different perpective on Ender's Game, yes, but I am not going to say that Card is cynical, or a trashy writer because he backtracked quite a bit. He fixed his errors, albeit in a stupid way, but you must also realize that he DID wait ten years to put out Xenocide, which, IMO, is a good thing. He could have rushed to "fix" everything, but he didn't. And that, I hope you consider.

Also, I do not, for the last time, argue that the extermination of a species is justifiable, I have said so before. I am not willing to argue it, though, but you consistently seem to think that because I contrdict the book's point of view AND your point of view, I don't have a point of view. But text issubject to interpretation. Point dropped.

Subject matter of debate is Ender's Game. Point dropped.

I personally view xenocide and genocide as two separate acts, one more terrifying and horrible than the other, but that is also my opinion. You are free to believe that there is no fundamental difference between the two, and I am free to believe that there is, and I have stated my beliefs, and as well have you. Point dropped.

I have, for my part, pointed out the fundamental observation that aliens in science fiction are devices; metaphorical representations of different human cultures or aspects of human nature/psychology —which is all they can ever be to present something recognisable to the reader. Another reason why the distinction you keep trying to invoke is a smokescreen.

So key characters are just "deivces"? Okay, I can see that. But as far as the metaphor thing, I don't think what Card was writing was meant to be interpreted as something to be taken seriously in real life, as it seems to me that you are saying. Or maybe you are saying it is a representation of real life? Again, text is subject to interpretation. Point dropped.

It was nice to debate with you, although not necessarily the most fun. Thank you for opening my eyes to a whole new perspective. I can only hope that I may have, in the smallest way, done the same for you.

Thanks,
Verilon

mew.

Yes, I am evil.

[Patrick Degan]

It was nice to debate with you, although not necessarily the most fun. Thank you for opening my eyes to a whole new perspective. I can only hope that I may have, in the smallest way, done the same for you.

Well, I appreciate the sentiment, sir, and apologies for any feathers ruffled.

[haas mark]

It was nice to debate with you, although not necessarily the most fun. Thank you for opening my eyes to a whole new perspective. I can only hope that I may have, in the smallest way, done the same for you.

Well, I appreciate the sentiment, sir, and apologies for any feathers ruffled.

No hard feelings? Thank you again. And you're welcome, in advance.

[FBHthelizardmage]

though xenocide is not exactly moral. I think that it is at least realistic. And further I can't see what other choice the humans had.

the buggers had twice come to earth for the purpose of annihilating humanity. and the they nearly succeeded killing a large portion of the human race in
the process.

the second time we one only by dumb luck.

so apart from blowing up the bugs planet what choice was there.

you could fight a defensive war.
however since the bugs out number us and the tech difference is not that great (they started of better than us and the tech curve of the Ender verse seems to have flattened out Enders forces weren't totally out teched when they got to the bug planet)

Also it is standard military doctrine that if you fight a purely defencive war you will eventually lose.

Or you could attempt to take the fight to the bugs but in a limited way.

I contend this is impossible. the only way Ender one was the suicide little doctor strike. so a limited offencive war is out.

the only alternative seems to have been what Ender did. also call me a cynic but I think this is what humanity would have done in real life.

there is also the side issue, that in terms of numbers of sentient beings the number of bugs may only equal the number of humans since they killed something like a billion humans on there first vist and there are only a comparative few sentient bugger queens.

[Nick]

PD - you seem to have constructed an extremely bizarre view of the moral dilemnas posed in Ender's Game.

The miltary was confronted by a seemingly implacable foe, with whom every attempt at communication had failed.

Note that emphasis there - the humans had not been able to communicate with the Buggers. The Buggers has not been able to communicate with the humans. No-one could talk to each other and say "Hey! We're people too!"

Your attempt to draw analogies with human wars is fundamentally flawed, because in every example you have given, translators and interpreters have been around, allowing the two sides to conduct meaningful negotiations.

So, any analogy drawing on the way humans treat each other is invalid, because it brings in a crucial element missing from Ender's Game - an avenue of communication between the two sides. Only analogies which presume an utter absence of meaningful communication are viable.

Now, in this context, the choices of those responsible for Battle School and the Little Doctor become a little murkier, don't they?

What is the price of assuming the Buggers aren't going to attack again, and being wrong? The utter destruction of the human race.

What about a half-assed attempt at containment? If it fails (which it almost certainly would), humanity is screwed again.

Their duty is to protect humanity - it would be nice if there was another way, it would be nice if they could establish communications and negotiate, but if the Buggers constitute a clear and present danger to the people the military are meant to be protected, then the military have a responsibility to eliminate that threat.

Almost anything is preferable to commiting xenocide/genocide, except for one: becoming a victim of it.

The Ender books never advance the thesis that the decision to wipe out the Bugger homeworld was, or should have been an easy one. By the time of Speaker for the Dead, the hero that was Ender Wiggin, has turned into the pariah that was the Xenocide.

Here's an analogy for you:
You are a cop. You have a gun. An armed crazy has just shot three people. He's ranting and raving and is still waving the gun around. What do you do?

I don't know about anyone else, but my answer would quite possibly be "Take him down." I'd feel shitty about it, but in the absence of non-lethal sidearms, I wouldn't have much choice. (Better for me to shoot him, and have to live with myself afterwards, than to stand by while he shoots more innocent bystanders)

[Nick]

If you wish to assert that the military at the time of Ender's game should have chosen to do something other than what they did, please meet one of the following criteria:

1. There existed an avenue for communication with the buggers that had not been tried. Demonstrate that the military of the time knew enough to attempt this avenue of communication.

2. A strategy other than total annihilation existed, which possessed a reasonable chance for success.

If your strategy for option 2 involves a large defensive fleet around Earth, please demonstrate that the human military possessed sufficient information about bugger industrial capacity to be confident in building a defensive structure able to withstand anything the buggers could throw at them (after accounting for relativistic effects).

The route they took was a lousy choice. With the information they had available to them, every other choice looked worse.

Eagle-eye hindsight is a bad disease, people - it is easy to judge the consequences of actions a posteriori. If you limit yourself to the information those people had, at the time they made their decision, then maybe you will have an easier time following their reasoning.

[Nick]

To extend my analogy:

The cop shoots the crazy, who ends up dying. It turns out that the gun he was waving around had run out of ammunition. But the cop had no way of knowing that at the time. Is the cop's action suddenly, retroactively, wrong?

The gun was empty. The crazy couldn't shoot anyone else. But the cop didn't know that - and every second the cop hesitates is a second where another person might get shot. . .

[Patrick Degan]

PD - you seem to have constructed an extremely bizarre view of the moral dilemnas posed in Ender's Game.

Oh really? And just what part of "genocide is wrong" do you find bizarre?

The miltary was confronted by a seemingly implacable foe, with whom every attempt at communication had failed.

Note that emphasis there - the humans had not been able to communicate with the Buggers. The Buggers has not been able to communicate with the humans. No-one could talk to each other and say "Hey! We're people too!"

A neat little plot device for Mr. Card, that the Buggers never invented radio, thus making communication impossible, thus making genocide the only way out. Too bad that the Buggers deciding to give up and letting themselves be exterminated undermines that little theory. It's pretty clear that they figured out they were dealing with an intelligent race.

Your attempt to draw analogies with human wars is fundamentally flawed, because in every example you have given, translators and interpreters have been around, allowing the two sides to conduct meaningful negotiations.

Even if communication had been impossible, defence was certainly not impossible, particularly given that humanity was faced with a STL enemy which couldn't bring its whole force to bear. Slower-than-light travel imposes the limitations upon the war for both sides.

So, any analogy drawing on the way humans treat each other is invalid, because it brings in a crucial element missing from Ender's Game - an avenue of communication between the two sides. Only analogies which presume an utter absence of meaningful communication are viable.

In a word, bullshit. Even if there was no radio communication, other forms of signalling exist —pulsed light corresponding to mathematical values being one alternative means of establishing contact. You're going to tell me that no intelligence can figure that out?

Now, in this context, the choices of those responsible for Battle School and the Little Doctor become a little murkier, don't they?

Nope. There is no validity to the concept of defensive genocide.

What is the price of assuming the Buggers aren't going to attack again, and being wrong? The utter destruction of the human race.

That's why any nation employs a military in the first place.

What about a half-assed attempt at containment? If it fails (which it almost certainly would), humanity is screwed again.

In other words, in the intervening decades between Bugger attack groups, Earth military R&D will remain static and humanity will simply not lift a finger to bolster their defences to intercept a slow-moving enemy they can easily spot thanks to Galileo's wonderful invention we call a telescope.

Their duty is to protect humanity - it would be nice if there was another way, it would be nice if they could establish communications and negotiate, but if the Buggers constitute a clear and present danger to the people the military are meant to be protected, then the military have a responsibility to eliminate that threat.

That does not automatically include genocide as a viable strategy.

Almost anything is preferable to commiting xenocide/genocide, except for one: becoming a victim of it.

Preventing that outcome does not automatically entail committing the crime preemptively. Hitler used the same reasoning.

The Ender books never advance the thesis that the decision to wipe out the Bugger homeworld was, or should have been an easy one. By the time of Speaker for the Dead, the hero that was Ender Wiggin, has turned into the pariah that was the Xenocide.

What a bunch of crap! Card laid out the situation to where genocide was their only option, elsewise "we may as well enjoy the next 75 years as much as we can before they wipe us out" as Mazar Rackham idiotically spouts. I've already outlined several alternatives dictated by the realities of slower-than-light travel and the difficulties entailed in prosecuting a war on those terms.

Here's an analogy for you:
You are a cop. You have a gun. An armed crazy has just shot three people. He's ranting and raving and is still waving the gun around. What do you do? I don't know about anyone else, but my answer would quite possibly be "Take him down." I'd feel shitty about it, but in the absence of non-lethal sidearms, I wouldn't have much choice. (Better for me to shoot him, and have to live with myself afterwards, than to stand by while he shoots more innocent bystanders)

False analogy. The unpleasant necessity of taking down one gun-waving lunatic immediately threatening my life is one thing. It would be entirely different if I judged his entire family and all his neighbours on the block where he lives to be nothing but a gathering of gun-wielding murderous lunatics and proceeded to wipe every last one of them out. The latter is the solution proposed in the book. The former analogy you reach for fits my solution of destroying oncoming Bugger attack groups without necessarily exterminating the entire race.

[haas mark]

Nick: I wouldn't bother. He's gonna pull the same things he did on me. And Degan, nothing personal, but I just found it tiring to argue any longer, although I did see a lot of your points.

[Patrick Degan]

If you wish to assert that the military at the time of Ender's game should have chosen to do something other than what they did, please meet one of the following criteria:

1. There existed an avenue for communication with the buggers that had not been tried. Demonstrate that the military of the time knew enough to attempt this avenue of communication.

Pulsed light corresponding to mathematical values. It is beyond rational sense to say that any intelligence could not possibly figure out what that means.

2. A strategy other than total annihilation existed, which possessed a reasonable chance for success.

Independently-manoeuverable attack drones built by the million, missile bases and laser emplacements on all the major moons of the solar system, fightercraft, mines, thousands of Little Doctor devices seeded in the Trojan orbits. In short —lots and lots of firepower.

If your strategy for option 2 involves a large defensive fleet around Earth, please demonstrate that the human military possessed sufficient information about bugger industrial capacity to be confident in building a defensive structure able to withstand anything the buggers could throw at them (after accounting for relativistic effects).

Unnecessary. Any alien attack fleet approaching at STL is going to be all they can bring to bear for any given attack wave. They will be more or less frozen at the level of technological development they were at when they left the homeworld, and the resources sustaining their flight will be all they've got —and half of those resources will have to be held in reserve for the flight back. Those conditions massively favour the defenders in an STL space war.

The route they took was a lousy choice. With the information they had available to them, every other choice looked worse.

It's not my fault that Orson Scott Card is a lousy writer and created an Earth military staffed by idiots (whose great plan, BTW, would have failed disasterously had the Buggers decided to make a fight of it in their homesystem).

Eagle-eye hindsight is a bad disease, people - it is easy to judge the consequences of actions a posteriori. If you limit yourself to the information those people had, at the time they made their decision, then maybe you will have an easier time following their reasoning.

Nice try. But no form of reasoning offers a validation for the theory of defensive genocide.

[Patrick Degan]

To extend my analogy:

The cop shoots the crazy, who ends up dying. It turns out that the gun he was waving around had run out of ammunition. But the cop had no way of knowing that at the time. Is the cop's action suddenly, retroactively, wrong?

The gun was empty. The crazy couldn't shoot anyone else. But the cop didn't know that - and every second the cop hesitates is a second where another person might get shot. . .

An extended false analogy is still false. The cop does not go on to annihilate the lunatic's entire family afterward; he is dealing with the threat as it exists at the moment. Self-defence is valid. Defensive genocide is not.

[Nick]

An extended false analogy is still false. The cop does not go on to annihilate the lunatic's entire family afterward; he is dealing with the threat as it exists at the moment. Self-defence is valid. Defensive genocide is not.

What's the real problem here, Patrick? Are you uncomfortable dealing with a world in which wrong things may appear to be the only possible choice?

Killing anyone is wrong (you are eliminating something unique from the universe) - but conceivably necessary in defense of yourself or innocents.

Waging war is wrong (as you are killing people) - but conceivably necessary in defense of yourself or innocents.

Using weapons of mass destruction is wrong (as you are killing a lot of people) - but conceivably necessary if your enemy is not open to negotiation, is bent on actively pursuing your destruction, and you will lose (and subsequently be annihilated) in the ongoing conduct of a conventional war.

Commiting xenocide is wrong (as you are killing an awful lot of people) - but conceivably necessary if weapons of mass destruction have been deemed necessary and your only weapon of mass destruction is one which results in the effective death of an entire species (e.g. destroying the home world of a race which cannot breed anywhere else).

Now, any conditions that could possibly justify the last two, do not exist on Earth and have not existed for thousands of years.

Your attempt to gain emotional support for your position by saying "Hitler used the same reasoning" is fallacious & dishonest. This is not where Hitler went wrong. The reason Hitler was a bastard, and the Holocaust such an abomination is because the genocide was carried out by the systematic extermination of individual Jews. The conditions in Nazi Germany, in no way came even close to justifying the use of genocidal tactics.

Ender's Game is an exploration of the idea "Is it conceivable that we, as humans, could come in contact with a species that seemed so pathologically opposed to us, that we would feel we had no choice except to commit xenocide in self-defense?" Why do you find even speculating about this moral dilemna so repellant?

All the humans in Ender's Game knew was:
1. The buggers attacked on sight (no attempts at communication)
2. The human fleet at the time of contact was going to lose - only a lucky shot by Mazer Rackham saved them.
3. The buggers had instantaneous FLT communication, just as the humans did.
4. Humans did not believe they had sufficient industrial capacity to build defences capable of withstanding the next bugger wave which was presumably on its way (even a wave which left the bugger homeworlds immediately on defeat of the first fleet).
5. A surgical strike with the Little Doctor did not need to defeat the Home World defenses of the buggers - it only needed to get close enough, for long enough, to drop the bomb on the planet.

Are you presuming you know more about the relative warhsip capabilities of the humans and the buggers, and the industrial output necessary to effective secure the solar system, than the military commanders of Ender's Game?

Are you forgetting that in order for communication to occur, both sides have to be actively attempting to communicate?

Do you consider your moral sensibilities more important than the ongoing existence of the human species?

Yes, I agree that the ideas I advance above are open to abuse. But any such problems lie in inappropriate application of the reasoning (e.g. Hitler and Nazi Germany), not in the reasoning itself.

Conditions which justify xenocide are possible, just as conditions which justify taking a human life are possible. The assumption that coded transmissions of mathematical concepts are going to be understood by any species we come in contact with is exactly that - an assumption. Ender's Game asks the question "Well, what if that assumption is wrong?".

The bugger's didn't use radio. In fact, they didn't use the electromagnetic spectrum at all - whoops, I guess your idea about coded light pulses just got blown out of the water.

You are taking your premise "there are no possible conditions that justify genocide", and using that to justify your conclusion that "Ender's Game is bad, because it advocates the possible use of xenocide".

I am asking you to do two simple things Patrick:

1. Justify your equating of genocide (killing of a, identifiable subset of one's own species, whom one is genetically equipped to communicate with) with xenocide (killing of an entire species - which may or may not be sentient - with whom you may have no method of communication).
2. Demonstrate that the fact that because there are no conditions which justify genocide (where the means of communication always exists), there are also no conditions which justify xenocide (where the means of communication may not exist).

If you cannot provide a reasoned argument from accepted assumptions justifying your position that genocide is identical in all respects to xenocide, then your conclusion is built into your assumptions and you are engaging in a circular argument.

Here's a hint - you need to provide a communication mechanism which absolutely every conceivable form of life capable of interstellar war will understand.

Ooh wait, what if there exists a species which believes it has the God-given right to exterminate every other species in existence, and isn't interested in communicating with them?

I think you're going to have your work cut out for you. . .

[haas mark]

I want to point out once more that there is a difference between genocide and xenocide. Also, I'd like you to state in 40 words or less why genocide/xenocide are the same. And in another 40 words or less why genocide/xenocide can't be used in a novel in any sense, or why it is morally wrong IRL to do so.

[Patrick Degan]

I want to point out once more that there is a difference between genocide and xenocide. Also, I'd like you to state in 40 words or less why genocide/xenocide are the same. And in another 40 words or less why genocide/xenocide can't be used in a novel in any sense, or why it is morally wrong IRL to do so.

I have already stated it: these bullshit semantical distinctions you insist upon making to try to define some division between exterminating an entire ethnic branch of humanity and exterminating an entire intelligent race are utterly meaningless. It amounts to the same crime: the deliberate, selective, targeted elimination of an entire people for the purpose of genetic cleansing. What about that is so damn difficult to comprehend?!?!

You really imagine that the one crime is somehow different or lesser because it applies to a species different from homo sapiens? How? You're still talking about eliminating difference, about inventing a false justification for destroying a people because they're animals/non-human. Conceptually, it is no different from arguing for the extermination of "subhumans", as the Nazis were wont to do once upon a time.

And it is not the "use" of genocide in a novel, per-se, which is the problem. It is rather the writer of that novel trying to manufacture justifications to make it seem the only reasonable course of action and to try to wallpaper over the fundamental wrong of such an action by having the spokesbeing for the murdered race "forgive" the guy who pushes the button, and to propose the even more ludicrous idea that the race that is killed can be unkilled later to make everything all better. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to Make It Not Happen in the real world. There are no second chances, and it is the height of either idiocy or irresponsibility to try to suggest otherwise.

[haas mark]

I want to point out once more that there is a difference between genocide and xenocide. Also, I'd like you to state in 40 words or less why genocide/xenocide are the same. And in another 40 words or less why genocide/xenocide can't be used in a novel in any sense, or why it is morally wrong IRL to do so.

I have already stated it: these bullshit semantical distinctions you insist upon making to try to define some division between exterminating an entire ethnic branch of humanity and exterminating an entire intelligent race are utterly meaningless.

WHy and how is it meaniungless? I'm going ot push it until you give me a valid explanation why/how. Even the dictionary distinguishes the two.

It amounts to the same crime: the deliberate, selective, targeted elimination of an entire people for the purpose of genetic cleansing. What about that is so damn difficult to comprehend?!?!

There is a difference between a people and a species. What about THAT is so hard to cemprehernd? And I would appreciate you uisiong less ad hominems and be a little bit more pleasant in your debate. It's no treally nice of you to be so rude when I am just trying ot make a point, as much as you are going to view it as semantical.

You really imagine that the one crime is somehow different or lesser because it applies to a species different from homo sapiens? How?

Because I would view the elimination of the human species as xenocide, not genocide. Ethnic cleansing is considered genocide. Causing the extinction of a species is xenocide. That one-letter change changes the whole meaning of the word.

You're still talking about eliminating difference, about inventing a false justification for destroying a people because they're animals/non-human. Conceptually, it is no different from arguing for the extermination of "subhumans", as the Nazis were wont to do once upon a time.

Conceptually, yes, truthfully, no. I'm not trying to justify it, because the buggers were about to commit xenocide against the human. They were ready to lay waste to Earth and use it as one of their own planets.

And it is not the "use" of genocide in a novel, per-se, which is the problem. It is rather the writer of that novel trying to manufacture justifications to make it seem the only reasonable course of action and to try to wallpaper over the fundamental wrong of such an action by having the spokesbeing for the murdered race "forgive" the guy who pushes the button, and to propose the even more ludicrous idea that the race that is killed can be unkilled later to make everything all better. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to Make It Not Happen in the real world. There are no second chances, and it is the height of either idiocy or irresponsibility to try to suggest otherwise.

Why don't you tell me that when you have recorded evidence form Mr. Card himself. You have no idea what his intentions were, and I am sick of you basing your assumptions on what you don't know.

The second chances: exactly why Ender HAD to use the Little Doctor. Exactly why the humans HAD to prepare someone for the eventual USE of the Little Doctor. That is why the humans HAD to prepare for the second wave. Sir, I think you're killing and unkilling is about as semantical as my difference between genocide and xenocide--which happen to have a fundamental difference in the meaning of the words.

And to think that all this started because you have something against the author's style of writing. Pah.

[Patrick Degan]

An extended false analogy is still false. The cop does not go on to annihilate the lunatic's entire family afterward; he is dealing with the threat as it exists at the moment. Self-defence is valid. Defensive genocide is not.

What's the real problem here, Patrick? Are you uncomfortable dealing with a world in which wrong things may appear to be the only possible choice?

False Dilemma fallacy. Threats are dealt with in accordance to reasonable scale, not limitless overkill.

Killing anyone is wrong (you are eliminating something unique from the universe) - but conceivably necessary in defense of yourself or innocents.

Waging war is wrong (as you are killing people) - but conceivably necessary in defense of yourself or innocents.

Using weapons of mass destruction is wrong (as you are killing a lot of people) - but conceivably necessary if your enemy is not open to negotiation, is bent on actively pursuing your destruction, and you will lose (and subsequently be annihilated) in the ongoing conduct of a conventional war.

Commiting xenocide is wrong (as you are killing an awful lot of people) - but conceivably necessary if weapons of mass destruction have been deemed necessary and your only weapon of mass destruction is one which results in the effective death of an entire species (e.g. destroying the home world of a race which cannot breed anywhere else).

And again, False Dilemma. I've explained in detail how alternatives short of genocide are feasible to deal with the Bugger threat. Exterminating the entire race was not the sole option, and your effort to make an equation from self-defence to defensive war to defensive genocide fails fundamentally.

Your attempt to gain emotional support for your position by saying "Hitler used the same reasoning" is fallacious & dishonest. This is not where Hitler went wrong. The reason Hitler was a bastard, and the Holocaust such an abomination is because the genocide was carried out by the systematic extermination of individual Jews. The conditions in Nazi Germany, in no way came even close to justifying the use of genocidal tactics.

Wrong. I was not making an Appeal to Emotion. Rather, it is you committing a Red Herring fallacy by suggesting that emotionalism was the thrust of my argument. Hitler's logic behind the holocaust was predicated upon the alledged threat to Germany's cultural and genetic destiny posed by the Jews and thus the Final Solution was being committed in defence of the German people. In other words, defensive genocide. And the particular mechanics of the planned elimination of the entire race (not "individual Jews") is immaterial. The ultimate goal of the programme was the same and carried out upon the same fallacious reasoning.

Ender's Game is an exploration of the idea "Is it conceivable that we, as humans, could come in contact with a species that seemed so pathologically opposed to us, that we would feel we had no choice except to commit xenocide in self-defense?" Why do you find even speculating about this moral dilemna so repellant?

Excuse me, but you cannot be that naive.

All the humans in Ender's Game knew was:
1. The buggers attacked on sight (no attempts at communication)

As I recall, the Buggers, lacking radio and thus conveniently for the plot having no means of establishing communication, attacked Earth because they did not sense intelligent beings on the surface. Never mind how ludicrous a proposition this is considering that the engineering works on the planet surface themselves should have been a dead giveaway of intelligence and at a more basic level that you really cannot effectively navigate in space or chart the stars accurately without radio astronomy and radar.

2. The human fleet at the time of contact was going to lose - only a lucky shot by Mazer Rackham saved them.

Which is immaterial to the issue before the bar.

3. The buggers had instantaneous FLT communication, just as the humans did.

Yes, the Bugger telepathy on the one side and the ansible on the other. Unfortunately, that does not solve the logistical problems for the Bugger attack fleet crawling through space at STL and thus does not change the equation as far as the actual conduct of the war.

4. Humans did not believe they had sufficient industrial capacity to build defences capable of withstanding the next bugger wave which was presumably on its way (even a wave which left the bugger homeworlds immediately on defeat of the first fleet).

Insufficent industrial capacity over a 75 year period of time?! The Bugger fleet is bringing factories along with their warship formations?!?! The oncoming fleet is going to outproduce an entire world?!?!?!?!

5. A surgical strike with the Little Doctor did not need to defeat the Home World defenses of the buggers - it only needed to get close enough, for long enough, to drop the bomb on the planet.

I cannot believe you're making such an absurd leap of illogic here. Just how would the LD be delivered within range of the homeworld without defeating the defence fleets or making enough of a hole in their formations for the carrier ship to get within range and to ensure the strike? Had the Buggers put up a fight, the 80-ship Earth fleet would never have gotten through the 8000-ship Bugger defence fleet. They gave up, as the Hive Queen communicates to Ender toward the end of the book (more about that point later).

Are you presuming you know more about the relative warhsip capabilities of the humans and the buggers, and the industrial output necessary to effective secure the solar system, than the military commanders of Ender's Game?

I'm presuming that I know more about the sheer physics of the situation that Orson Scott Card did. Once again, it is not my fault that Mr. Card posited an Earth military led by idiots, or that he apparently was unaware of the limitations imposed by relativity mechanics upon STL interstellar warfare (a concept which Joe Haldeman was more than cognizant of in his novel The Forever War) and failed to connect the fucking dots.

Are you forgetting that in order for communication to occur, both sides have to be actively attempting to communicate?

And evidently you forgot that the entire reason why the Buggers didn't attempt communication —aside from the ludicrous proposition they somehow never invented radio— was that because they didn't receive any telepathic impression from humanity, they were not aware that we were intelligent. My counter to that is that any intelligent race should be able to interpret that a signal of pulsed light corresponding to mathematical values should in and of itself indicate the presence of intelligent life at the base end of the signal. It's basic reasoning actually.

Do you consider your moral sensibilities more important than the ongoing existence of the human species?

Non sequitor. You are trying to argue that A and B are mutually exclusive.

Yes, I agree that the ideas I advance above are open to abuse. But any such problems lie in inappropriate application of the reasoning (e.g. Hitler and Nazi Germany), not in the reasoning itself.

Picking gnatshit out of pepper is what that's rightly called.

Conditions which justify xenocide are possible, just as conditions which justify taking a human life are possible.

In a word, bullshit. B does not automatically follow from A.

The assumption that coded transmissions of mathematical concepts are going to be understood by any species we come in contact with is exactly that - an assumption. Ender's Game asks the question "Well, what if that assumption is wrong?".

In other words, the Buggers will not know mathematics? How do they design spaceships? How do they navigate?

And in any case, that was not the question posed in Ender's Game.

The bugger's didn't use radio. In fact, they didn't use the electromagnetic spectrum at all - whoops, I guess your idea about coded light pulses just got blown out of the water.

In other words, the Buggers are blind? How can they pilot the spaceships without seeing what they're doing. Hell —how do they even BUILD the fucking things?!

You are taking your premise "there are no possible conditions that justify genocide", and using that to justify your conclusion that "Ender's Game is bad, because it advocates the possible use of xenocide".

We're not talking about a problem in science but philosophy and ethics. I've stated the central idea of the book and attacked it on philosophical and ethical grounds.

I am asking you to do two simple things Patrick:

•Justify your equating of genocide (killing of a, identifiable subset of one's own species, whom one is genetically equipped to communicate with) with xenocide (killing of an entire species - which may or may not be sentient - with whom you may have no method of communication).

Like Verilon, you also seem to be falling into the trap of making bullshit semantical distinctions to try to create a false division in the nature of the crime simply because one applies to group A and the alledged other applies to group B.

•Demonstrate that the fact that because there are no conditions which justify genocide (where the means of communication always exists), there are also no conditions which justify xenocide (where the means of communication may not exist).

See above point.

If you cannot provide a reasoned argument from accepted assumptions justifying your position that genocide is identical in all respects to xenocide, then your conclusion is built into your assumptions and you are engaging in a circular argument.

Um, dead wrong. I've already demonstrated that there is no real conceptual difference between the crimes, if you've bothered to read the thread all the way through. You are basing the defence of your position upon an abstraction.

Here's a hint - you need to provide a communication mechanism which absolutely every conceivable form of life capable of interstellar war will understand.

False dilemma. It is merely necessary to devise a signalling method which clearly communciates intelligent design, and communicating mathematical values is the most basic form of establishing contact. It is already presumed that an alien race will not know English.

Ooh wait, what if there exists a species which believes it has the God-given right to exterminate every other species in existence, and isn't interested in communicating with them?

And what if the Great and Terrible God Cthulhu emerges from the nearest black hole to Earth, teleports itself to our world, and begins consuming the souls of every human being? What-ifs are interesting to a point, but not where they're used to extend the terms of an argument beyond reasonable scope.

I think you're going to have your work cut out for you. . .

No, I don't think so. I'm not required to argue an infinite regress of conditions to satisfy you. I merely need to demonstrate that a) there is no moral validity to the concept of defensive genocide, b) that reasonable alternatives existed to the commission of a fundamentally immoral action, and c) that Orson Scott Card failed to consider all the angles or the implications of his plot when he was writing his book.

[Nick]

I want to point out once more that there is a difference between genocide and xenocide. Also, I'd like you to state in 40 words or less why genocide/xenocide are the same. And in another 40 words or less why genocide/xenocide can't be used in a novel in any sense, or why it is morally wrong IRL to do so.

I have already stated it: these bullshit semantical distinctions you insist upon making to try to define some division between exterminating an entire ethnic branch of humanity and exterminating an entire intelligent race are utterly meaningless. It amounts to the same crime: the deliberate, selective, targeted elimination of an entire people for the purpose of genetic cleansing. What about that is so damn difficult to comprehend?!?!

I have provided you with the meaningful distinction:

Genocide refers to destroying a sub-group of the same species, a sub-group with which you are biologically equipped to communicate.

Xenocide refers to destroying another species, with which you may not be able to communicate.

I agree that, in the presence of effective communication, and hence the prospect of negotiation and compromise, neither genocide nor xenocide is justifiable.

What you have so far failed to justify, is your assertion that the reasoning regarding genocide is applicable, even when effective communication is impossible.

That is the meaningful distinction, and that is the one you wish away by saying that effective communication will always be possible. Verilon and I (and OSC, for that matter) are saying that there may be a situation where communication is not possible, and that, in those circumstances, xenocide may become a justifiable course of action.

You are saying that, either that situation will never occur (an assertion you have not proven), or that, even if the situation does occur, it will still never provide justification for xenocide (another assertion you have yet to prove).

That is two unproven assertions to none - which means, up to this point, you lose.

[haas mark]

As I recall, the Buggers, lacking radio and thus conveniently for the plot having no means of establishing communication, attacked Earth because they did not sense intelligent beings on the surface. Never mind how ludicrous a proposition this is considering that the engineering works on the planet surface themselves should have been a dead giveaway of intelligence and at a more basic level that you really cannot effectively navigate in space or chart the stars accurately without radio astronomy and radar.

And this justifies killing off every other planet? They couldn't sense the beings on the planets, obviously, or they would not have killed them off. As well, the Hive Queen DID manage to contact Ender through the game. It was a weird happenstance, but then that would be justifying the "unkilling" before it took place, wouldn't it? No, that would be against your opinion, so it MUST be wrong...

[Patrick Degan]

I have provided you with the meaningful distinction: Genocide refers to destroying a sub-group of the same species, a sub-group with which you are biologically equipped to communicate. Xenocide refers to destroying another species, with which you may not be able to communicate.

I know you believe this to be a meaningful distinction, but it is based upon an abstraction. In both cases, we're talking about the deliberate wholesale annihilation of an intelligent people. You can as easily say that you may not be able to establish communication with a different tribe/nationality of human beings, but that certainly does not provide an exception to the essential crime of genocide.

What you have so far failed to justify, is your assertion that the reasoning regarding genocide is applicable, even when effective communication is impossible.

In actuality, I have. You insist that there is a difference to be found which somehow eliminates the magnitude of the crime of genocide simply because communication may be difficult.

That is the meaningful distinction, and that is the one you wish away by saying that effective communication will always be possible.

In other words, understanding mathematical values is totally beyond the comprehension of an alien intelligence? How?

Verilon and I (and OSC, for that matter) are saying that there may be a situation where communication is not possible, and that, in those circumstances, xenocide may become a justifiable course of action.

Now you're repeating yourself. I've answered this point above.

You are saying that, either that situation will never occur (an assertion you have not proven), or that, even if the situation does occur, it will still never provide justification for xenocide (another assertion you have yet to prove). That is two unproven assertions to none - which means, up to this point, you lose.

Wrong. I am not required to provide Absolute Proof of every term. I have merely to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives existed to the situation laid out, and that Orson Scott Card, either through intent or incompetence, set up a series of wholly arbitrary conditions in his plot which resulted in a false dilemma offering only one solution. It doesn't help his case that several of the conditions he sets forth in his own text undermines the very logic of his plot and ones arising from some very sloppy writing on his part.

[Nick]

No, I don't think so. I'm not required to argue an infinite regress of conditions to satisfy you. I merely need to demonstrate that a) there is no moral validity to the concept of defensive genocide,

And then prove that this reasoning is applicable to a known enemy, who has actively tried to destroy you, with whom you are unable to communicate - as opposed to an enemy who thinks in a manner very similar to you, and with whom you are able to communicate quite effectively.

There are qualitative differences between these two situations Patrick - we are saying that those differences might be enough to alter the moral assessment of the situation.

b) that reasonable alternatives existed to the commission of a fundamentally immoral action, and

And demonstrate that those alternatives actually are reasonable, and not due to you misunderstanding the realities of the situation. Demonstrate that those alternatives resulted in an "acceptable level of risk", with respect to the continued existence of humanity.

c) that Orson Scott Card failed to consider all the angles or the implications of his plot when he was writing his book.

Since when has that been a criterion before writing a book? The author writes the book they want to write - the audience then reads out of it what they choose to see. Take a look at Aldous Huxley's foreword to the recent reprint of "Brave New World" - he himself says that if we were to write BNW now, it would be a very different story (he had to restrain himself from tinkering). No author in history of human existence has ever considered all the angles before writing a book - why are you holding OSC up in particular as an example of this?

Verilon and I read Ender's Game, and we see a novel which presents an interesting moral dilemna - and then a series explores some of the effects of that crisis on the future development of humanity.

You read Ender's Game and see what? An instruction manual for genocide? You're reading things into it that just aren't there - and that says more about you than it does about the book.