Could things have worked out with David?

[NothingFromSomething]

I always thought K.A. should have tempered that a little, found some way to have it so the Yeerks had a whole bunch of hosts on the ground WAITING for those Yeerks, like it was a delivery, to bring more forces to bear.  Make it a little more morally ambiguous, and give Jake more of a point, make it less of an emotional "screw 'em", and more of a genuine "we've literally gotta kill 'em all or we lose" thing. 

Have him basically be in the right, but a whole lot of people think he's a war criminal anyway.  Add to that gray area stuff.

[donut]

Well, everything David did was to have fun, make himself more comfortable, or to get power.  I can't think of anything he really did that wasn't motivated by one of those.  You said there wasn't a difference in what David did and what the animorphs did.  But their intentions were completely different.

Where would you draw the line, if it were your choice?  How many would it be ok to let die, or even kill to save the human race?  It's a hard question.  Is it just numbers, which way gets fewer killed?  Is it just what side you're on, anything is ok if it's necessary for us to win?  Is it about what each side is trying to do, we can do whatever is necessary because we won't go on to enslave everyone but they will?  It's not a question that's easy or has a universal answer.   But I believe it's much more acceptable to kill thousands of people even trying to save lives or fight for freedom than killing a single person just because he annoyed you.


A little off topic, but we've sorta moved in this direction:  in TAC, Alloron wanted to dump the yeerks in transport into space, and the Elfangor objected because they were defenseless.  Almost everyone would agree with Elfangor, and I used to.  But I realized that for them to be able to fight back means andalites would have to die in the process.  I also realized that for them to fight back would mean they'd have to have hosts.  The hosts would have to die too.  After I realized that, I found myself siding more with Alloron on that decision.

[Shenmue654]

Of course there are "types" of people.  You can't just classify everyone down to the nth-degree, sure, but there are broad archetypes of personality and behavior.

There's a big difference between saying this, and saying "Of course he was hopeless. He was just the type to be an unsalvageable dick." Under the Federal Rules for evidence, you're not allowed to use someone's character or past acts as a way to show the likelihood that they committed the crime they're on trial for. This is because character evidence is incredibly likely to bias the jury, convincing them that someone committed a crime because they're a jerk rather than on the weight of the evidence.

It's also just common sense in regular life that that isn't always the case. I've known people who were "the type" to be school shooters, serial killers (And did neither) and I was considered "the type" to be a learning disabled idiot. I'm a 2L student in a prestigious law school. There are "types" of people, but your "type" doesn't predict your future behavior. 

Where would you draw the line, if it were your choice?  How many would it be ok to let die, or even kill to save the human race?  It's a hard question.  Is it just numbers, which way gets fewer killed?  Is it just what side you're on, anything is ok if it's necessary for us to win?  Is it about what each side is trying to do, we can do whatever is necessary because we won't go on to enslave everyone but they will?  It's not a question that's easy or has a universal answer.   But I believe it's much more acceptable to kill thousands of people even trying to save lives or fight for freedom than killing a single person just because he annoyed you.

~Ah, the Lucifer Effect. An admittedly favorite topic in our discussions. For who is it to say what is right and what is wrong? What can the humans use to justify their actions?

And what happens when the moral issue becomes....complica ted? What if the human race had to torture another sentient being to achieve their lofty moral purpose? Does then the moral calculus change when it is suffering rather than death?

I believe that there are actions that are necessary, in war, for your army to achieve its intended purpose. But I don't believe that you can walk away from such necessary actions with your hands clean. Many have tried outside these books, and all of them have failed.

 

[donut]

There are "types" of people, but your "type" doesn't predict your future behavior.

I'd throw it out there that had Cassie's parents been less functional, she would have dealt with it just like David. She wasn't exactly the "Suck it up" type.

You're kinda contradicting yourself here.  You're saying you can't predict behavior on type, but then predict Cassie's based on her type.

But that's a good point, what are the statistics for repeat offenders?



Oh, I've got a scenario for that question.  Let's say you're in charge of the US and at war with another nation. can do whatever you want.  Because of the how serious the war is, a new wartime powers act was passed that gives you a free pass to do whatever you want regardless of the law or constitution.  Are there any circumstances when it would be justified to throw your own soldiers against the enemies, knowing they will be slaughtered, just because your side can afford to take the casualties and your enemy can't; and you target the other nation's agriculture knowing it will result in the civillian population starving; and exiling U.S. citizens for speaking against your policies?

[Shenmue654]

You're kinda contradicting yourself here.  You're saying you can't predict behavior on type, but then predict Cassie's based on her type.

Hee, so you noticed.

But that's a good point, what are the statistics for repeat offenders?

The statistics generally are that there's a small number of people who are persistent repeat offenders, and another group who are either convicted of one crime and afterward never take another crack at it....or there's a huge number of years between rounds. It depends upon the person, and the same person can change patterns. The problem I have is when people try and "classify" another person in one type or another without any real evidence of what that person actually does. And also when people write people off according to "type," affording them not the slightest degree of redemption and thus indirectly damning them to repeat themselves.

Are there any circumstances when it would be justified to throw your own soldiers against the enemies, knowing they will be slaughtered, just because your side can afford to take the casualties and your enemy can't; and you target the other nation's agriculture knowing it will result in the civillian population starving; and exiling U.S. citizens for speaking against your policies?

These strike me as questions with three different answers. (1). Yes. Basic wartime logic--- nasty stuff like this happens. (2). I'm more hesitant with this one, because I don't see why another solution designed to thin their numbers/cut off their supply chain wouldn't work. (3). If you do this, you alienate your own population. Not worth it.

Mar's torture question still comes up, too. What if the thing you "have" to do to save your country is morally reprehensible by your own standards? All of the above are nasty things to do, but they're a hell of a lot less direct. You can almost, under some of the above circumstances, blithely ignore what you've just done.

[donut]

The statistics generally are that there's a small number of people who are persistent repeat offenders, and another group who are either convicted of one crime and afterward never take another crack at it....or there's a huge number of years between rounds. It depends upon the person, and the same person can change patterns. The problem I have is when people try and "classify" another person in one type or another without any real evidence of what that person actually does. And also when people write people off according to "type," affording them not the slightest degree of redemption and thus indirectly damning them to repeat themselves.

The stats I found when I googled it were different than that, but I guess it depends on the crime.

These strike me as questions with three different answers. (1). Yes. Basic wartime logic--- nasty stuff like this happens. (2). I'm more hesitant with this one, because I don't see why another solution designed to thin their numbers/cut off their supply chain wouldn't work. (3). If you do this, you alienate your own population. Not worth it.

I should clarify the question, not each individually.  All of them, a packaged deal.  But to the third one, another country might be different, but I picked the US for a reason.  The freedom of speech is sacred and part of what we defend when we fight a war.  So sacred is it that office holders and soldiers take an oath not to defend and uphold the country, but defend and uphold the constitution.  Would that count as a "morally reprehensible by your own standards" act?  Me, personally, I'd find them all fairly reprehensible, letting your own people get slaughtered, specifically targetting civilians, violating the freedom that you're fighting for.  Maybe unforgivable maybe not, but do you think circumstances could justify it?

[Shenmue654]

I should clarify the question, not each individually.  All of them, a packaged deal.

Then it's a "No" for me. I can see circumstances under which #1 and #2 might be committed by me, but I can't see any circumstances under which I'd commit #3. The latter one goes so far against my basic moral code that if I had to reject or accept them all, I'd have to reject all three wholesale. If you want to really screw things up, though....let's say for a minute that I wasn't the guy in charge, and that the guy who was was my God. If He asked me to do any of the above, I would gleefully violate my own moral code.

The freedom of speech is sacred and part of what we defend when we fight a war.  So sacred is it that office holders and soldiers take an oath not to defend and uphold the country, but defend and uphold the constitution.  Would that count as a "morally reprehensible by your own standards" act?

Nah. The kind of thing we were talking about there isn't just morally reprehensible. I mean something you do that gives you PTSD nightmares at night from doing it. Something you can't run away from by feeling bad about doing it, the line between "jerk" and "monster." Like shooting up a dozen people, or torturing a guy, or brutalizing innocent civilians because they happen to be associated with a terrorist. Zero Dark Thirty stuff, or Alloran using the quantam virus on the Hork-Bajir home world.

Which begs the question overall. In war you have to do things that make you into a "jerk" or even a "monster," sometimes. Does an action being justified in context mean that it isn't wrong? We're not so sure on that one.

[donut]

Now, let's say you aren't in charge, someone else is.  Would you find it acceptable for that person to do it instead? Under what circumstances would you think it was justified?


Ah, but that's more of an emotional question.  How bad do you have to feel before you don't want to do it rather than how bad it is before you don't want to.

[Shenmue654]

Now, let's say you aren't in charge, someone else is.  Would you find it acceptable for that person to do it instead? Under what circumstances would you think it was justified?

I would find it unacceptable to interfere with someone else's actions. Interfering conflicts with my aforementioned moral code, no matter how warped whatever the other person is doing is.

Ah, but that's more of an emotional question.  How bad do you have to feel before you don't want to do it rather than how bad it is before you don't want to.

Not sure what this is referring to. If it's referring to the above statement, well...I personally don't see the difference between "How bad you feel" and "How bad it is." What you feel IS your Reality.

[donut]

Well, that opens up a whole other can of worms, but to stay somewhat on topic I'll skip that discussion.  I'm not so much asking if you would stop it, just if you would think it was ok for someone else to do it.


In my view, only considering how you feel about something means no one else matters except in how they make you feel.  Say in an extreme example, I steal someone's car, but as long as I don't have to see the person suffering for it or think about the person suffering, it's not wrong since I don't feel bad about it.  In effect, how I feel is the only thing that matters in determining what's right and wrong.  I've never really thought about this view, so I might be missing some of the nuances or completely getting it wrong, but I couldn't accept that as a moral code.


Anyway, to my question.  I was hoping other people would join in the discussion, but I think the whole thread is just you and me now.  The question I posed wasn't hypothetical.  They were the actions that the Union took during the American Civil War.  Union soldiers were  pushed into fighting simply because they could afford the loses and the Confederates couldn't.  Union soldiers cut a huge path of destruction through the Confederacy, destroying the food supply to civilians.  Abraham Lincoln exiled a member of congress from the country because he spoke out against Lincoln's policies.  The actions taken were brutal.  But almost everyone would say they are justified because of what was being fought for.  Every tenet of morality was violated to win that war, but I'm not sure you could find someone who would say that in this case, the ends did not justify the means.  That the intentions and effects far outweighed the actions.

The ultimate point is this:
Intentions and effects are what defines actions.  The things David did were far worse than what the animorphs did because the animorphs did them in an attempt to protect the human race and freedom.  David did them for fun, or for his personal gain.

[Shenmue654]

In my view, only considering how you feel about something means no one else matters except in how they make you feel.

I believe that's...just the way things work. The morals that were imparted to us ensure that we feel bad or guilty when we do something "wrong" according to our society's moral code, and so ensure a functioning society. All of us follow what we were taught or what seems "right" to us in our worldview because of our emotional reactions to the moral and immoral.

Say in an extreme example, I steal someone's car, but as long as I don't have to see the person suffering for it or think about the person suffering, it's not wrong since I don't feel bad about it.  In effect, how I feel is the only thing that matters in determining what's right and wrong.  I've never really thought about this view, so I might be missing some of the nuances or completely getting it wrong, but I couldn't accept that as a moral code.

You're missing the point. When most people would steal that guy's car, they instantly would feel guilty for stealing it. That feeling, empathy, is what gives you morality and what creates moral codes. A sociopath is a person for whom that feeling does not exist, and so a sociopath must rationalize another reason why it would be a bad idea to steal from that guy. Some of them fail to.

Those feelings and perceptions of morality ARE Reality to the person feeling them....but in my experience they're completely subjective. It's possible that guy down the street doesn't feel them the same way or even about the same things. My sister shows revulsion toward anything even slightly sexual, and I have no reaction at all.

Intentions and effects are what defines actions.  The things David did were far worse than what the animorphs did because the animorphs did them in an attempt to protect the human race and freedom.  David did them for fun, or for his personal gain.

I simply don't agree. I can't believe that torturing people is okay because a person's doing it to "protect freedom." In my dimension, I'm so repulsed by torture that performing it would stain the torturer for years in my eyes. However, if I love someone enough that terrible act doesn't stop me from loving them or supporting them. My morality schema simply isn't impenetrable.

[donut]

I believe that's...just the way things work. The morals that were imparted to us ensure that we feel bad or guilty when we do something "wrong" according to our society's moral code, and so ensure a functioning society. All of us follow what we were taught or what seems "right" to us in our worldview because of our emotional reactions to the moral and immoral.

I disagree.  History is full of philosophers who have thought through morality from an intellectual standpoint regardless of how something feels.  And it's a self-centered view in the most literal sense.  Only what that person feels is important.  I'm under the impression the whole point of a moral code is to avoid that.


I wasn't really talking about sociopaths.  Someone would have to actually consider a person's suffering before being able to feel empathy.  If someone just didn't consider it, they wouldn't feel empathy.  And I don't believe guilt and empathy are the same thing.  Empathy is sharing an emotion you think someone else is feeling.  You can feel guilty doing something that doesn't affect anyone at all, and empathy can give positive emotions as well.

But as long as we're on sociopaths, if we define right and wrong based on if it makes you feel bad, then a sociopath is incapable of doing wrong.  A sociopath would be the most moral person in the world.

I think the whole point of a moral code is to define right and wrong, regardless of how someone feels about it.  If all you needed was emotions, then you don't need a moral code to begin with.

[Shenmue654]

First off....As much fun as the two of us are having with this (Him more than me XD) we're getting waaaay off topic. Should we take it into another thread? But here's where we proceed.

I disagree.  History is full of philosophers who have thought through morality from an intellectual standpoint regardless of how something feels.

Of course. But the vast majority of average people aren't philosophers. Human beings make most value judgments in seconds, and those value judgments are all feelings (Empathy, disgust, fear, anger, rage and revulsion, et cetera). That's why you can hate villains in movies, and love heroes.

Only what that person feels is important.  I'm under the impression the whole point of a moral code is to avoid that.

Again, of course that's what moral codes were designed to avoid. That's why they impart the correct series of triggers in a person's psyche. Moral codes are designed to create consensus on what feels "right" and what feels "wrong." Once those triggers are embedded, the person then feels the correct emotions when something occurs that either violates or lines up with their moral code. But these moral codes don't always line up perfectly. Example: A devout Christian, against homosexuality, feels revulsion when viewing two homosexual men kissing. The two men, for their part, feel passion and warmth. A third person, with a different moral code than the Christian, feels nothing at all.

....it seems relatively simple to me, and I fail to see how it's self-centered when most of these triggers were created in order to prevent overly self-centered behavior.

I wasn't really talking about sociopaths.

If we're talking morals, we should talk about them. They are creatures that violate the moral order by failing to comprehend the supposedly universal. It'd be like having a conversation about how seeing was universal and ignoring blind people. That conversation just doesn't trigger the same reactions. ;}

And I don't believe guilt and empathy are the same thing.

Never said they were, but I get how that'd be confusing because for me anyway....my earlier statement was in the context of stealing somebody's car. The existence of empathy causes you to feel guilt, in that situation. Unless you feel guilty there because of your moral code about stealing, but with me the former's more likely to come up first.

But as long as we're on sociopaths, if we define right and wrong based on if it makes you feel bad, then a sociopath is incapable of doing wrong.  A sociopath would be the most moral person in the world

I think it depends upon the sociopath's intelligence, really. As things stand now, morality is defined by cultural consensus. That is, the largest number of people with the same moral code (I.E. The same feelings in response to the same things) imparted to them.

If the sociopath was so stupid so as to be truly oblivious as to the existence of other people, then yes we're looking at an innocent fool. (I consider intent under some circumstances, such as the capability of the person to form it). If the sociopath's smart enough to know about other people and what the consensus is, the sociopath must be condemned if the sociopath fails to follow it.
 

[NothingFromSomething]

I'd be careful as labelling David as sociopathic, implying he didn't understand.  That's possible, sure, but there's not a whole lot to go on in the books as far as establishing that, over "I comprehend the morality, I just don't care". 

[Shenmue654]

I figure David's not a sociopath, from his actions. Like I said, at this point we're just discussing morality for morality's sake and should take it off-thread.