Yeerks - Evil or not?

[Darth Zakryn]

I'm sure this topic has been done to death, but since I couldn't find any recent renditions of it, I've decided to post it again. Again, I'm going to try and keep civil and logical during this debate. That said, here is my two cents.

Animals = Humans?: Yeerks seem to compare us to animals. That's stupid IMO. We're not animals, we're thinking, sentient beings. Animals are no less important than us, but the dffierence between eating an animal and eating another human being is vastly different on so many levels. Also, I've learned that with a few exception, humans, or at least some nations, DO try to keep the animal as comfortable as possible before they are killed and do so painlessly.

Slavery: Eating to survive is way different than enslaving people. We're shown that the Yeerks were comfortable in the Yeerk pools and even the limited Gedds before the Andalites arrived and messed things up. Hell, a lot of the Yeerks found the experience of infesting a host awful and frightening. The few that enjoy those sensations are forcing those that don't to conform to that idea, and that is the same as communism.

Nuremburg Defense: Sure, a lot of Yeerks might be compassionate and even hate taking hosts without joining the YPM, but does that mean they're justified in doing things they know are wrong just because they're told? Sure, they'd probably be killed, but what about those Nazis who knew what they were doing was wrong? Were they justified just because they were afraid of death?

Their treatment of hosts: They've been shown time and time again to treat their hosts horribly, breaking them mentally, and creating a cycle of hatred and pain. Hell, they even KILL other host bodies without regard for the original host, when it is, in fact, the Yeerk who committed the offense. That action, in and of itself, is evil, without a doubt. The ruthless murder of a helpless innocent, unlike being killed in combat.

The way I see it, the Yeerks as a species are morally ambiguous, and not ALL Yeerks are evil, but their movement to start taking over innocent species who had done them no wrong, while ignoring their feelings and treating them as if they're nothing more than dumb animals, makes their actions undeniably evil, even if they aren't themselves, but remember that old saying: "Actions speak louder than words."

[RYTX]

We're not animals, we're thinking, sentient beings.

Human's are animals. Period.
It unsettles me how people don't even contemplate that other animals may be thinking and sentient. They may not seem that way to us, but who knows if we seem that way to them?
I find it hard to believe that only a handful of animals can reflect, or that most have NO comprehension of what's happening in their lives even if they don't or can't do anything about it

Slavery: Eating to survive is way different than enslaving people.

True, but I'm gonna take one more shot at humans before I get to a real point.
Most humans don't just go out and kill something and eat it.
Most people depend on food from "domesticated" animals.
We get our food from creatures bred and reared-their entire lives devoted to being put to our benefit.
No matter how comfortable they are, even protected, they're lives are heavily restricted from what they would otherwise be.
We say their not enslaved, but that's cuz they're not people. If you stuck a person in those conditions for their entire life, would you  honestly say they're free?
And that's what the Yeerks do with their host, once the species is obtained.
Aftan got it right comparing host to livestock: the stock's life originated and sustained for the benefit of another
If she'd compared humans to the random fish caught in the sea, then I could see it being different

Again, it's so hard to judge Yeerks as a whole: We only get a really good look at 2 or 3 (IMO: V1, V3, Aftran) and almost all the ones we see are parts of the military or government.
I don't care if I voted for them even, I don't want my whole nation, state, whatever judged by handfuls of politicians and fighters.

Were they justified just because they were afraid of death?

Honestly I don't think most of us can say what we won't do under threat of death.
They aren't justified, but that really makes it unfair to fault them entirely

Hell, they even KILL other host bodies without regard for the original host, when it is, in fact, the Yeerk who committed the offense.

I'll give you that, but that Yeerk is killed too. Most the the time. But seeing as they hold host as domesticated stock: we'll it's sad to kill a cow if your target is hiding behind it, but few would call it evil.

I mean humans are a pretty morally ambiguous race too: slaverly, murder, wars over different ways of worshiping the same god. For thousands of years, including now. For beings we acknowledge as our own equals. I can't say their species is any worse than ours at least.

[Darth Zakryn]

I'm not saying humans aren't morally ambiguous, I'm just pondering some things.

That said, the Yeerks want to take over ALL species as opposed to just one. What about that?

Killing another host just to get to the Yeerk is wrong, which is why I have so much problems with Marco trying to kill Aftran. Hell, I agree that by that definition, that makes the entire Andalite race wrong! But I can't help it, it's what I feel. Although, since there seems to be no afterlife in the Animorphs universe, it makes you wonder how wrong it is to... well, do anything.

[Terenia]

No. Yeerks are not evil.

They're brainwashed into thinking that a certain way of life is right, just like the German children who hated Jews and just like the American children who rioted to prevent segregation. When you are brought up thinking that something is right, it is hard to question those beliefs.

But not impossible. And those Yeerks that were successful in questioning their beliefs formed the Peace Movement.

I also find it difficult to believe that all Imperial Yeerks were always cruel to their hosts. We saw evidence with this even with Visser One, Edriss, and her various hosts. It would just be downright exhausting to purposely forge a terrible relationship with your host. If I had to have someone living in my head all the time, I'd want to try and get along with them, even if I thought they were inferior to me. I mean, I think I'm superior to chihuahuas, but if I had one I'd still try to make it happy so that it didn't annoy me to death by yapping all the time...

[Darth Zakryn]

Some very good points, Terenia. Still, though, to use the German children example, does that make it right when they kill a Jew and not in self-defense? I still think the same applies to the Yeerks, which ties into what I was saying about the trials for permanently morphed Yeerks after the war. They may not be evil, but like I said, ACTIONS are what matters, and their actions can be seen as evil, from a certain point of view. At least in my opinion.

[Terenia]

their actions can be seen as evil, from a certain point of view. At least in my opinion.

Well, yes, anything can be seen as anything from 'a certain point of view'. I think the problem is that when you apply universal human laws to other humans (like Nazis) it works...because there are certain moral truths that, at least, the vast majority of modern society holds true. Murder, for example, is pretty universally considered wrong (not always, though). Still, when you bring in a member of a species that isn't even from your planet, it gets kind of dicey.

The big question is, can a human impose human morality on a non-human being. Are the supposed "universal truths" truly universal? Or only for humanity?

[Darth Zakryn]

Very interesting ideas, Terenia. I suppose it all goes back to the question of if Yeerks have feelings, thoughts, and opinions, which we've seen they do, the same as the Andalites, the Taxxons, and so on.

[Noelle]

I don't have a lot of time for a long answer (three tests tomorrow, yay!  -_-)  But I have always had the view that good and evil doesn't really exist, only people who agree with you and people who conflict with you.  I think that, even though KAA talks about good and evil in her books as though they are real things, I think that in its philosophical core it really explores the reality that good and evil are nothing more than subjective rules that makes your particular society work.


Basically, good and evil is pounded into our heads only to make our particular society work and function.  Now, I'm not saying belief in good and evil is a bad thing.  I sure as hell don't want to live next to neighbors who don't think good and evil exist.  But in the end its nothing more than a fake idea we've been brainwashed into so we don't run around killing each other and stealing things.

Really, no one in the book is good or evil.  They all just need to get something done, and have different ways about doing it.  Yeerks just want a host.  Humans just want to be free.  And Andalites just want to purge everything so they can stop dying in the war, protect all the other races, and fix their mistake.  All justifiable and unjustifiable in their own rite.

[Darth Zakryn]

Sure, there may not be good or evil, but there is most definitely right and wrong. It IS wrong to kill a helpless person not in self-defense or to rape someone totally undeserving of it.

[Noelle]

Of course it is wrong for us, because our society cannot function when those things happen.  Not only is it damaging to our society and to ourselves, it serves no purpose at all.  That is why we call it "evil."  (And keep in mind, this not me saying it is right.)

But you can't say those things are wrong in every culture.  There may be some animals where rape is needed for the continuation of the species.  And a Yeerk or an Andalite (or even human) may have plenty reason to kill a helpless person.  Maybe they saw something they shouldn't, maybe they won't always be helpless.  It might even be a situation where the wrong thing to do would be letting the person go.


Of course, things always get muddled and mucked up when two species clash against one another.  You have two totally different societies with two totally different moral codes and ways of living.  You cannot realistically or logically, in a conflict like that, say they have done something "wrong" unless they have violated their own race's set of standards, and even as we've seen with the Andalites, war can skew that anyway, because in war you have to let go your ideas of right and wrong if you want to win.  Really, the only philosophy you can logically ascribe to when two races clash is just a plain survival of the fittest.

[Darth Zakryn]

That's possibly the greatest argument I've heard on this thread, Noelle.

[Myitt]

Lots of great points here, guys.  My big thing about the Yeerks is, I don't think you can fairly judge an entire people based on a few megalomaniac leaders, or even the few Yeerks through which we get to see a personal Yeerk perspective.  If the government of a people commits evil acts (and who's to say the U.S. or other countries on Earth don't?), that doesn't mean every one of the citizens of that country is evil.  And yes, I agree with RYTX, who knows what we would or wouldn't do under pain of death? 

If you'd grown up your whole life being told that it was okay to inhabit the minds of other beings--and keep in mind, not all Yeerks enjoy or desire this biological act, as evidenced in The Hork-Bajir Chronicles--you would probably believe it.  After all, it IS something you're biologically adapted to do, just like we can eat meat or eat vegetables, or used to uphold slavery, and given the social norms of the time or the everyday natural fact of eating we don't (or wouldn't) think anything of it.

Don't forget we also hear from Illim through book #29, and Aftran herself says that there are "many good Yeerks".  This could just be social bias, but when you're just one of the "unimportant nobodies" trying to survive a war that you basically had no choice but to join, of course it makes sense that you'd be more likely to hold a grudge against the government that's forcing you into this way of life.

Then again, like Aftran said, what choice do they have?  Living a blind, helpless, but ultimately more selfless life, trapped on the Yeerk homeworld under Andalite quarantine?  Or enjoying the beauty of a planet like Earth, if only they could find hosts willing to cooperate with them?

To sum up: life in the Yeerk Empire is kind of a b*tch.  But no, not all Yeerks are evil.  Even those who commit evil acts don't really seem to hold a candle to the evil humanity has caused over the millennia.  They may commit acts that we, as humans, would consider wrong, but to them infestation is a sort of selfish desire, a necessity that isn't really a necessity--except, to minds so brilliant and yet so physically handicapped, it is.  A few wacko leaders killing off subordinates and their hosts is a byproduct of their twisted government.  I don't think I'd be so quick to judge.

[Darth Zakryn]

But the basis of all Yeerks is to enslave other species. If you're in a host's head, that's wrong, period, at least that's what I believe, being human. I guess the question we should ask is if, by our standards, any Yeerk in a host is evil. By their own morality, it's very questionable, but those like Visser Three and maybe even the Council of Thirteen, are evil, because of their actions, and because they are the ones orchestrating it. At least IMO.

[Terenia]

But the basis of all Yeerks is to enslave other species. If you're in a host's head, that's wrong, period, at least that's what I believe, being human.

Even if they're voluntary? And if they aren't voluntary initially, a lot of hosts probably began involuntary and then, over time, may have developed a more voluntary relationship - maybe even a friendship - with their Yeerk. It's almost like an arranged marriage -- the Yeerk had no say in what host he/she got, because it was government mandated, and the host certainly had no choice, but they both have to learn how to live with one another without driving each other absolutely bonkers. And, for the record, arranged marriages have a tendency to be highly successful.

I guess the question we should ask is if, by our standards, any Yeerk in a host is evil.

I'm going to go back to what I previously said, and to what Noelle said as well.

We can't judge the Yeerks by our standards, because they aren't us.

Look, many religions over the years have performed human sacrifices. Take the Aztecs and the Mayans, for example. In their culture it was not wrong to kill, or evil to throw someone's heart into a fire after it had been carved out of his chest with a knife. It was simply  a part of their culture. Those acts aren't still practiced today because they don't fit the norms of our society today, but at one time they were perfectly socially acceptable within the criteria of the culture.

By their own morality, it's very questionable, but those like Visser Three and maybe even the Council of Thirteen, are evil, because of their actions, and because they are the ones orchestrating it. At least IMO.

By their own morality, I would say that the questionable bit isn't the act of taking a host itself, but rather the methods through which they maintain their political relationships. The Council, in the brief moments that we see them, don't actually seem to actively endorse brutalizing your host. They don't frown upon it either. They're a government, and the leaders of a government, and their job is to keep their political system working and to win a war (and lets not forget that at war time the rules always change).

If you look at the actions of Visser Three, it is made clear many times during the series that he was considered an inadequate leader by the Yeerks themselves. His methods clearly went beyond Yeerk morality, and we heard various Yeerks complain about it throughout the series. He's a nasty piece of work, but politically he's effective at spreading fear amongst the lower ranks, so he's kept in power, because fear is a useful weapon.


Last thing in my novel. Ax mentions several times without the series that if the Yeerks did their research and looked into the history of humanity and what humans were capable of, they would pack up and leave. I remember this particularly in Megamorphs 3, when they visit the different wars throughout history.

If the Yeerks ARE evil, it definitely says something about us if human acts disgust them...

[Gumby]

Isn't this all fun to think about in the middle of the night? Is there right and wrong? Is there actual universal moral boundaries that are simply wrong to cross? It's a real bugger when you're trying to argue the 'morality' of a certain act. I mean the Yeerk's infestation of unwilling hosts, was it mean? Cruel? Yes and yes. But what is actually wrong? Well, I don't think so. If the law of the Universe is survival of the fittest, then the Yeerk's have every right to infest us. If they are capable of defeating us, if they are the fitter race, then its not wrong for them to get us. It's merely natural, the way sh*t's supposed to go down in our happy little Galaxy.

Relative morality's a real bugger isn't it?

[Darth Zakryn]

The question is if they have a soul. What is a soul, though? Well, my definition would be feelings and thoughts, and I don't care what people say, animals have these too. To kill to eat can be considered evil, although animals have the excuse of not knowing better. When I eat, I do like the Indians and thank the food beforehand. I know it sounds utterly stupid, but hey, it helps my conscience. I try to honor animals for being our food. The Yeerks don't do that. They don't honor their hosts, at least the ones in power don't, and that makes those Yeerks wrong, IMO, although we've seen that not all Yeerks are like that. You could argue that Yeerk control is like rape. OMG that's a debate for a whole other topic...

[Terenia]

Sorry for tearing all your posts apart, Zakryn. I just like this topic.

The question is if they have a soul. What is a soul, though? Well, my definition would be feelings and thoughts, and I don't care what people say, animals have these too.

If we're debating this all based on your definition of things, then your answer will always be right and ours wrong. Personally, I don't believe in a "soul". But, if we go by your definition of "having feelings and thoughts", yes Yeerks definitely have those. But their thoughts and feelings are DIFFERENT from ours. That's an important distinction, I think.

To kill to eat can be considered evil, although animals have the excuse of not knowing better.

To kill to eat is not evil - not if it is necessary for your survival. And the Yeerks are not killing anything. Besides, even if animals did know better, they are biologically capable of processing certain foods. If you give a lion nothing but tofu it is not going to be a healthy lion.

When I eat, I do like the Indians and thank the food beforehand. I know it sounds utterly stupid, but hey, it helps my conscience. I try to honor animals for being our food.

That's not stupid. Praying/thanking/honoring/etc. prior to a meal is a fairly common practice among many.

The Yeerks don't do that. They don't honor their hosts, at least the ones in power don't, and that makes those Yeerks wrong, IMO, although we've seen that not all Yeerks are like that.

See that part I bolded? I think that's what makes all the difference. Some Yeerks do terrible, morally suspect things. But not all Yeerks. You said it yourself, not all Yeerks are like that. How can you condemn a whole race as evil if only some Yeerks act that way?

And how do we know that some Yeerks don't honor their hosts? You give thanks for your food prior to eating it, I don't. Does that make me, and by extension, all of humanity evil? Of course not.

You could argue that Yeerk control is like rape. OMG that's a debate for a whole other topic...

Well, first of all, rape is sexual in nature. If you compare everything you are forced into to rape then that's a slippery slope. I think slavery is a much more apt comparison than rape, but you're right, that's a debate for a different topic.

[RYTX]

Well, my definition would be feelings and thoughts, and I don't care what people say, animals have these too. To kill to eat can be considered evil, although animals have the excuse of not knowing better.

Um, huh? They have feelings and thoughts, but the excuse of not knowing better? does not compute

In case, if every or any Yeerk is evil is too much about opinion and point of view.
It's easy to as if enslaving someone is evil, harder to say every slave holder is.

Those ambiguous concepts no one ever bothers to hammer out

[Noelle]

I really don't even think that the most brutal of the Yeerks could be considered evil or wrong.


Think about how they are, and how their society works.  It's true that there are some Yeerks that have a more utopian view of what they want their world to be like.  But they aren't in the governing body for a reason.  They can't openly say that for a reason.  It isn't how their culture was structured.  In order to transform their society into a society that only takes willing hosts, millions of Yeerks would go without hosts.  Millions would be sentenced to a life that would essentially be considered hell compared to what it was.  How do you choose who gets to see, hear, and smell and who gets to live in the dark?  Even if we assumed the entire Yeerk race was nothlitized into humans or whatever creature they chose, to do so would cause massive chaos and unrest in their society.  They would have to separate the ones that would abuse that power and the ones that could live peacefully, how do you do that without legislation that would be brutal in its own rite?  If anything, THOSE ones would be classified as 'wrong' because they were hurting the rest of their race.  They were adapting to ANOTHER culture's way of life, not their own.  They were sabotaging the people they came from.  If anything, they were forging their own separate culture, then it's just back to a survival of the fittest match to see which side would thrive to control the rest of the Yeerks.


On the other side, I don't think you could even say Visser 3/1 could be classified as wrong or evil.  Yeah, he was brutal and merciless and made it his goal to rule by complete force.  He had to...did you see his competition?  People looking to cut him down and take his throne at every turn, people who ATE other Yeerks had it out for him, people collaborating with the animorphs to take him down just for revenge.  He had to do those things to keep his people in line.  He would have never in a million years been able to keep control of Yeerk culture without such means, and even in the end it fell apart.  If he didn't do it, someone else would have.  That was just the way Yeerk culture was.  Eat or be eaten.

If you think about it, that would be the only way you could hold such a society together.  When you are basically becoming one with another creature, how long until you adopt their views and thoughts just from living in their head day in and day out?  Not to mention you HAD TO live their life and their way.  Visser Three had to basically hold together a culture comprised of seven or eight different races AND fight a three way war.  You ain't going to do that by sending thank you cards.  If he didn't rule the Yeerks with a heavy fist, his people would have fallen apart, and in the end that would have been wrong.

[Darth Zakryn]

I'm not trying to condemn all Yeerks. I am trying to point out that their government is evil and their leaders are. I think I might be fudging my words.

Noelle: I'm curious - you think there is no such thing as evil. Well, if you were to murder someone you love in cold blood, even if it was acceptable by social standards, would that not make it wrong, even evil? Not self-defense, not for a reason, just random violence. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just generally curious.

[Terenia]

I would agree that their government and their leaders are corrupt, yes. But the question of the thread isn't "Is the Yeerk Empire Corrupt?" It's "Yeerks - Evil or not?"...that seems to imply all Yeerks.

[Darth Zakryn]

Oops. Well, we can still debate the subject. Differing people have differing views. And like I said, while trying to engage in healthy, mentally stimulating debate, I have screwed up my words in a fashion worthy of Archie Bunker.

[Ouroboros]

Everything I was thinking about when I saw this topic has already been said!

Yeerks are totally not evil.

Weird and alien to us, with bizarre methods and mannerisms that we might consider to be "bad", sure. Simply evil, not so much.

[Darth Zakryn]

I finally figured out where this went wrong. I just wanted to talk about Yeerks in general, with a subsection being whether what they were doing was wrong. But I goofed it up by putting the word "evil" in the thread. Not one of my finest moments as a RAFian... So you see, I was never asking if the Yeerks were "PURE EVIL!!! Mwuahahaha!" I know they're not.

[Bootlebat]

I would say the Yeerks are not inherently evil any more than humans. It is more just because of their society and culture.

[Shenmue654]

I find the subject of good and evil inherently, obsessively fascinating--- And I get into contact with some weird people by being such.

As has already been mentioned, I don't think it's fair to call a whole culture evil. Hell, even the books seem to be wrestling with this idea. The Yeerks might've been "comfortable enough" in the pools, but is it right to deny them a whole society on that basis? They've pointed out countless times that they had only a Neolithic culture before the Andalites came, and they only had that because they took the bodies of Gedds. Without their hosts, they become...well...lit tle more than animals, in a sense. Sentient pond slugs. Beyond the megalomaniacal designs of some of their leaders, all they ever wanted was to have a worthwhile future.

Between brutally taking slaves and no culture at all, I'd go with the former.

On the other side, I don't think you could even say Visser 3/1 could be classified as wrong or evil.  Yeah, he was brutal and merciless and made it his goal to rule by complete force.  He had to...did you see his competition?  People looking to cut him down and take his throne at every turn, people who ATE other Yeerks had it out for him, people collaborating with the animorphs to take him down just for revenge.  He had to do those things to keep his people in line.  He would have never in a million years been able to keep control of Yeerk culture without such means, and even in the end it fell apart.

Actually there's some indication that the original Visser One had a pretty good and possibly nastier model going and developing host sympathy (She's a complicated person...) but that it didn't work out because it was culturally unsettling to the Empire take over humans by appealing to their humanity. Most people think that human beings wouldn't throw away their freedom en masse for some nebulous concept....but we throw away our lives for such things. We slaughter each other for such things. Done right and not in a kid's series, with more knowledge of humanity, Visser One could have created a religion. And a monster.

As for whether Visser Three himself was "evil"....You could say that in a different context, that's the very question I'm trying to answer. By the standards of human society, I'd say yes. ....I'll come back to you on that one in thirty years. :p