Ethics of killing defenceless Yeerks

[Phoenix004]

The ethics on killing Yeerks while in their natural state (ie. without hosts and therefore helpless) is something that is brought up on multiple occasions throughout the series. Strangely enough, it's almost always from Jake's POV. Here are the main examples: (SPOILERS for various books obviously)

1. During the Andalite Chronicles, Elfangor strongly objects to Alloran's order to murder a large of defenceless Yeerk prisoners by flushing them into space. Despite everything he has been taught about how evil the Yeerks are and the importance of obeying his superiors, he effectively commits mutiny to save his sworn enemy because he knows what Alloran wants to do is wrong. 

2. In #6 Jake casually boils a whole bunch of Yeerks in a small Yeerk Pool at the hospital, shortly before he is infested. He doesn't hesitate or show any sign of guilt over the decision and nobody objects to the plan.

3. However, a similar opportunity presents itself again in #21 during the David trilogy, and Jake is much more hesitant. He isn't necessarily concerned about the moral consequences, but realises that leaving the Yeerks alive is a better tactical decision, so that the Yeerks don't suspect the Andalite bandits have infiltrated the building.

4. And finally the big one: in the series finale Jake is once again faced with the decision on whether or not to flush the main Yeerk Pool aboard the Pool Ship. Again he is hesitant and is tormented with guilt afterwards, but in the moment he was angry and desperate and did what he felt had to be done.

So with all of these examples in mind (and feel free to mention any I might have forgotten) what are your opinions on this topic? Was Jake right, or at least justified, in doing what he did? Did he hesitate in #21 just for tactical reasons or because he had developed more of a moral compass since #6? Remember this would have happened not long after #19, when they first learn of "good" Yeerks. Was it justified in #6 but not at the end of the series?

TLDR: Is it morally acceptable to kill a Yeerk without a host?

[Chad32]

Either way you're more than likely killing some defenseless creature. Either a slug in a pool, or a slave that's being forced to fight and die for the slug. And the slug may survive when the slave's throat is ripped out, ready to enslave someone else.

Generally it's thought of as cowardly to kill someone who is at your mercy, but it's a catch 22. Like Alloran said. Would you rather be killing a defenseless Yeerk, or a defenseless host that's being forced to fight against its will? Paraphrasing.

Of course there is the third problem that the Yeerks in the pool may rather be somewhere else too. The Vissers in power are holding their subordinates hostage. fight for the Empire, or starve to death in a few days. Unless you want to go crazy on oatmeal, or cannibalize your species.

[Phoenix004]

Yeah I get that a killing a host isn't exactly guilt-free, but it's a different situation in my opinion. For one thing, some hosts might prefer to die rather than continue being enslaved. Also if a crazy man has a knife and tries to stab me, I'm going to defend myself even if he isn't truly in control of his own actions. Same goes for an innocent host being controlled by a Yeerk. Yes it sucks that I have to harm the host, but at the end of the day it's self-defence, which is always justified.

[Chad32]

It's a subject worth debating, but I don't think there's a clear cut answer to it. Of course if you've taken control of a building, and plan to hold it, the Yeerks are effectively POWs. Meaning it's not ok to flush the pool or whatever at that point.

[Phoenix004]

Yeah that's similar to what I was thinking about. Flushing the Pool Ship is often seen as wrong, but nobody bats an eye when they do the same thing (albeit on a smaller scale) in #6, and I was trying to think of reasons why. I guess because they Yeerks at the hospital were an active threat, where as the Yeerks aboard the Pool Ship were prisoners and there was no tactical reason to kill them.

[Chad32]

In number 6 the Yeerks were thought of as just the enemy. They were evil, and needed to die. It wasn't until later that KAA started considering nuances. We're all aware that she wasn't thinking too far ahead when she started the series.

I wouldn't consider the pool ship Yeerks prisoners, since the Anis didn't currently have the whole ship under control. Plus flushing those Yeerks wasn't really the primary goal. In book 6 it was.

[Redtailednothlit]

I think it's better to kill them in the pool than kill them while they're in a host. I wouldn't have any qualms about flushing the Yeerks.

[Phoenix004]

In number 6 the Yeerks were thought of as just the enemy. They were evil, and needed to die. It wasn't until later that KAA started considering nuances. We're all aware that she wasn't thinking too far ahead when she started the series.

I wouldn't consider the pool ship Yeerks prisoners, since the Anis didn't currently have the whole ship under control. Plus flushing those Yeerks wasn't really the primary goal. In book 6 it was.

Yes I realise that it wasn't raised as an issue in #6 because the Yeerks hadn't been developed beyond pure evil yet, but in terms of the series you can also attribute it to the fact that the Animorphs are still young, inexperienced and aren't aware that any good Yeerks exist yet. Even Cassie doesn't object to it.

I sometimes wonder if my feelings are influenced by how the book presented the issue. I never had a problem with the Yeerks in #6 being killed, it never even occurred to me. But it's such a big moral dilemma at the end of the series that you have to wonder if it was the right thing to do. I certainly don't blame Jake for what he did, but at the same time he obviously did it out of anger not for any tactical advantage. If anything it alerted the Blade Ship to the fact that there was a problem aboard the Pool Ship. And among those 17,000 Yeerks there was bound to be members of the Yeerk Peace Movement. It's clearly one of the things that comes between Jake and Cassie post-war.

I think it's better to kill them in the pool than kill them while they're in a host. I wouldn't have any qualms about flushing the Yeerks.

Honestly? I'm not even sure myself anymore, lol. I understand why you would do it; war sometimes means doing the necessary thing instead of the right thing. Problem is, I just can't see why it was necessary.

[Tim Bruening]

Yeah I get that a killing a host isn't exactly guilt-free, but it's a different situation in my opinion. For one thing, some hosts might prefer to die rather than continue being enslaved. Also if a crazy man has a knife and tries to stab me, I'm going to defend myself even if he isn't truly in control of his own actions. Same goes for an innocent host being controlled by a Yeerk. Yes it sucks that I have to harm the host, but at the end of the day it's self-defence, which is always justified.

Also, some of the hosts were voluntary (voluntarily serving Yeerks who were fighting for Visser 3).  I think that killing such hosts WOULD be ethical!

[Chad32]

No, it wouldn't. Even if someone is voluntary, there's no telling why unless you have a talk with them. Which would be hard to do in a pitched battle.

[donut]

Yes.  And it's simpler than most people make it out to be (sorry, this gets rolled into my mind as the same question of bombing soldiers while they sleep).

It's simple, the objection is they aren't actively fighting you.  But, would you object to killing an armed controller who doesn't see you?  He's just as defenseless if you can kill him before he can react.  He has zero chance of killing you.

Would you object to killing him if he was about to kill a friend of yours or one your people?  He will eventually reach the battlefield if he doesn't die first.  Then he will be about to kill one of your people.  Why would you risk your people's lives like that?

Besides, it never seemed to me a good basis for choosing a fight on giving the other guy the best chance to kill me.  It's a war, people have to die for it to end.  It will be your people or theirs.  Killing them in the safest most advantageous way keeps your people alive.

[Phoenix004]

An armed Controller who hasn't seen me yet is still a potential threat. A Yeerk in its natural state is literally powerless without a host. As for the sleeping soldier analogy, he's also a threat as soon as he wakes up. A Yeerk without a host is more like a blind, deaf, paralysed soldier.

Of course I realise taking pity on the Yeerks on the Pool Ship is hypocrisy, as the Yeerks at the hospital in #6 were just as helpless and I do consider them a threat because they were about to receive hosts.

[donut]

If he can't see you, he can't shoot you or do anything to you.  If he sees you, then he becomes a threat.  But if a yeerk takes a host, he becomes a threat too.  The only difference is how quickly they become a threat.  Same with sleeping soldiers.  A hundred miles from the front, it would take days for them to be a threat.  Arguably more time and less of a threat than the yeerks in a yeerk pool.

Besides, in modern combat, everyone fights the war.  The truck drivers, transporting soldiers where they need to be to fight; the paper pushers, making sure people are ordered to the right locations; even the civilians working in factories building the weapons.  Ultimately, the person pulling the trigger is just a delivery boy for the bomb maker.

[Tim Bruening]

If he can't see you, he can't shoot you or do anything to you.  If he sees you, then he becomes a threat.  But if a yeerk takes a host, he becomes a threat too.  The only difference is how quickly they become a threat.  Same with sleeping soldiers.  A hundred miles from the front, it would take days for them to be a threat.  Arguably more time and less of a threat than the yeerks in a yeerk pool.

Besides, in modern combat, everyone fights the war.  The truck drivers, transporting soldiers where they need to be to fight; the paper pushers, making sure people are ordered to the right locations; even the civilians working in factories building the weapons.  Ultimately, the person pulling the trigger is just a delivery boy for the bomb maker.

Would you be in favor of bombing enemy cities indiscriminately on the grounds that all the residents are part of the war effort?

As for the Yeerks, would you support the Andalite plan to infect them with a Quantum Virus (Book 40), or turn Earth into a charcoal barquette to eliminate the Yeerks and their 6 billion potential hosts (end of series)?

[Teirae]

Kill or be killed...
Those yeerks on the pool ship were there for potiential hosts, it might not have been within minutes, but in a couple of days, there would be potentially 17000 more controllers.