Involuntary Infestation

[KitsuneMarie]

What if a job was created in which humans would acquire and then morph into Yeerks to enter the heads of the human accused and figure out what really happened? Again, there are all sorts of potential abuses of power that could occur, but humans might be more comfortable with the idea of being momentarily controlled by other humans rather than Yeerks, who have so much to gain from a host body.

But back to the morality of this issue, I think it's grey at best. I believe Chad's concern about how hosting only the most scummy of human bodies might be hazardous to the human race is valid. The Yeerks' system of morality is divergent enough from humans' and Andalites', as it is. Who's to say they're right or wrong for using others as host bodies, within their own system of morality? If the humans and Andalites are attempting to integrate Yeerks into peaceful galactic society through moral imperialism -- which, it looks like they are trying to do by the end of the series -- they should be very careful what they let them learn. The moral ambiguity of these actions on the humans' part is already questionable; humans have been flirting with imperialism for a while now, but are starting to see its negative consequences.

As far as using criminal bodies for hosts, human morality has tended to agree in recent history that absolute slavery is not okay. For the Yeerks, enslaving other species is completely natural. If, however, they're forced to live by human standards of right and wrong, I agree with Anijen: it's as if we're enslaving criminals and the Yeerks who control them.

[Terenia]

As far as using criminal bodies for hosts, human morality has tended to agree in recent history that absolute slavery is not okay. For the Yeerks, enslaving other species is completely natural. If, however, they're forced to live by human standards of right and wrong, I agree with Anijen: it's as if we're enslaving criminals and the Yeerks who control them.

I agree. However, from what I understand the Yeerks are already being forced into bodies that are not their own via nothlitism. How is that different from forcing them to take a human host? At least then they get to have opposable thumbs, eh?

The idea of having humans morph Yeerks to interrogate is an interesting one, and actually makes sense. I doubt humans would ever trust a Yeerk implicitly, not after the whole invading-earth thing.

I guess ideally some sort of a deal would be made in which the Yeerks and humans both have something to gain...however, I don't see the Yeerks having much of a say in anything in a post-54 world. It isn't like we can just open up a link with the Emperor and ask his permission. I almost feel like the Yeerks become the slaves of humans regardless, just in different ways.

Which isn't wrong, of course, because it's Yeerks being enslaved/forced into a lifestyle, not humans. Which is wrong. 

[KitsuneMarie]

However, from what I understand the Yeerks are already being forced into bodies that are not their own via nothlitism. How is that different from forcing them to take a human host? At least then they get to have opposable thumbs, eh?

Opposable thumbs are pretty rockin.

I don't know that it's necessarily crueler or more wrong to give Yeerks criminal host bodies while requiring them to adhere to human standards of right and wrong than it is to turn Yeerks into nothlits. To me, neither one seems particularly fair to the Yeerks -- again, I mean by their own system of morality and by their own standards of what is natural.

This is what I see as the problem: on a fundamental level, humans and Yeerks simply cannot coincide. These two races cannot agree with each other or understand each other on some very basic levels. Some of those virtues to which humans cling the tightest are not even applicable to Yeerks, and vice versa.

All that aside, even if we look at the idea of involuntary infestation from a strictly human moral compass (and I realize that human morality is far too varied for me to understand much less analyze here, but bear with me ), slavery is something I imagine many people wouldn't endorse quickly -- or ever.

I, for one, don't think I could ever feel okay with involuntary infestation, even if it does superficially transform murderers into model citizens. And here's why:

• As several folks have pointed out, this doesn't necessarily do anything to rehabilitate criminals.
• Also, some hosts can regain control of their bodies from time to time, so who knows what a criminal could do if it overpowered its Yeerk; this system could potentially put the public in danger.
• Finally, I think there is a reason humans ferociously resist the loss of autonomy and identity. Think of a grandparent who rages at being rendered unable to drive, an ALS patient who can no longer control his own body and is trapped in his own head, or a customer who is reduced to a number rather than a name. This stuff is terrifying to us! We want to be ourselves, and in control of our bodies. Even criminals placed in the strictest prisons still have autonomy over their most basic identity and bodily functions. They can still pace their cells and speak when they wish, even if they are stripped of all else. To become an involuntary Controller violates basic human rights that I would argue even the most vile of humans possesses.

[Terenia]

Finally, I think there is a reason humans ferociously resist the loss of autonomy and identity. Think of a grandparent who rages at being rendered unable to drive, an ALS patient who can no longer control his own body and is trapped in his own head, or a customer who is reduced to a number rather than a name. This stuff is terrifying to us! We want to be ourselves, and in control of our bodies. Even criminals placed in the strictest prisons still have autonomy over their most basic identity and bodily functions. They can still pace their cells and speak when they wish, even if they are stripped of all else. To become an involuntary Controller violates basic human rights that I would argue even the most vile of humans possesses.

I'm going to address just this last part because I feel lazy.

I would argue that certain criminals may NOT retain their basic human rights, and that society has shown this point of view by practicing the death penalty. I mean, one of the most fundamental rights we have as human beings is our right to life, correct? Well, perhaps being infested removes your autonomy, but it sure as hell is better than being dead, IMO. If you're infested, there's still hope. AND, if there was some sort of a rehabilitation process put in place, who better to tell if the person is truly rehabilitated than the Yeerk in the persons head?

[KitsuneMarie]

I would argue that certain criminals may NOT retain their basic human rights, and that society has shown this point of view by practicing the death penalty. I mean, one of the most fundamental rights we have as human beings is our right to life, correct? Well, perhaps being infested removes your autonomy, but it sure as hell is better than being dead, IMO. If you're infested, there's still hope. AND, if there was some sort of a rehabilitation process put in place, who better to tell if the person is truly rehabilitated than the Yeerk in the persons head?

Ok, I definitely agree with your last point.

Re: the death penalty, you're right that it strips people of what some might say is the most basic of human rights: the right to one's own life. Two things here. One, I personally think capital punishment is immoral in and of itself... but I really don't want to initiate an off-topic and sensitive debate here, so I'll just leave it at that. Two, even for someone who is executed, we can at least claim all of his actions and emotions and words and thoughts during his life as being his own. Even in death, humans are recognized as individuals. Don't you wonder if, for some people, being infested is worse than being dead? Isn't that the freed Hork-Bajir motto: "Free or Dead?" For those who feel this sentiment, involuntary infestation is remarkably cruel. For those who don't... would this make them voluntary hosts?

[Chad32]

I think different people have diferent opionions on what defines a basic right. Funny thing is that Liberty is supposed to be a basic right but is the first thing you lose when you commit a crime. You lose liberty when they throw you in jail, right? Or is that something else?

You can get out if someone pays bail, but you still won't be able to leave town.

[voodooqueen126]

Chad28: it is called the social contract (read Rousseau if your lazy, Locke, Hobbes and Thomas Paine if your not as they are far better than Rousseau who is that fool responsible for the concept of the noble savage) the basic argument or Hobbes (who was the first as he lived during the English Civil War) was that humans are naturally evil in a state of nature (sorta paraphrasing) and that without society human life is short brutish and horrible (the book is called Leviathan) and we band together to protect ourselves leading onto a few other concepts of the social contract (been a while since I studied all this-Rousseau wrote the book on the social contract, but I think Locke discussed the concept of social contract as well).
Oh dear I have forgotten where I was, and how this applies to the topic, except to say to Chad: read Hobbes Leviathan, anything by John Locke, and Thomas Paine's Common Sense (which was very significant in the American revolution) as well as Rousseau's Social Contract (but take a few of Rousseau's concept with a grain of salt-there is an argument that Rousseau's ideas, lead onto the tyranny of the french revolution (we must force them to be free) and even onto communism so he is quite different from Hobbes, Locke and Thomas Paine (despite the fact that Hobbes believed in the divine right of kings and Rousseau believed in the goodness of man) it's all very interesting but it has been awhile since I studied them. I don't know how to get back on topic.

[Chad32]

Ok. If I get some free time and remember to, I'll read up on them. This is supposed to be relevant to basic rights? Or what i posted earlier about what really counts as treason or betrayal?

[Aluminator (Kit)]

I just keep thinking about the poor Yeerks. They want bodies too. Voluntary infestation would probably be hugely stigmatic in this time, so the Yeerks are stuck with what few Gedds they can get their hands on. From a Yeerk perspective, I say involuntary infestation is always okay. They've as much right to a body as you do- it's not their fault they weren't given one to begin with 

[morfowt]

well to be literal, they were given bodies. just not physically...capabl e bodies.

[Aluminator (Kit)]

And they were given the ability to use those physically "capable" bodies. Is it right for us to insist they remain confined to a blind existence in a tiny pool when they are capable of so much more?

[Terenia]

And they were given the ability to use those physically "capable" bodies. Is it right for us to insist they remain confined to a blind existence in a tiny pool when they are capable of so much more?

I agree! +1!

[voodooqueen126]

Hobbes, Locke, Thomas Paine and Rousseau are all about rights and the social contract (and our ideas about human rights are based upon the social contract)....
Do you have a right to make other people totally miserable for you own happiness.
We can use Thomas Jefferson as an example: he knew slavery was wrong, but he continued on owning slaves as he was a terrible spendthrift and was always in debt.
The yeerks are similar in some ways: they know they cause absolute misery to others, but they put their own needs ahead of others.
I don't see why the yeerks need sight/bodies/hearing etc: they are not evolved for sight, or movement so why do they crave them? parasitism in nature tends (we must not think of yeerks as humans trapped in a slugs body after all) to be practical: creatures infest to reproduce, to feed off their hosts etc but for a conceptual (not sure this is quite the right word) non practical thing such as seeing or freedom? who evolves that?

[Chad32]

The Yeerks don't do to their hosts what most parasites do, though. They reproduce without host bodies, and they don't gain nutrients from hosts either. The only reason they're called parasites is because the benefits between Yeerk and host are almost completely one sided. Though not absolutely one sided if the Yeerk is willing to work with the host. The Yeerks could have actually done a lot to help the Hork-Bajir society if they worked with the Horks instead of enslaving them.

[voodooqueen126]

But that is the point: nature is all about the practical: reproduction, food and so on. so what is the point of giving an organism mind controll (like a few real life parasites) if they are not going to use it to reproduce or feed.