Topic: Where can I find Mr Card's rebuttal to Elaine Radford?
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
A couple of foolish people on the XKCD forums were talking about her essay and I'm trying to find Mr Card's response so there can be a fair discussion.
posted
Hers is easy enough to find (google/wikipedia), it's linked from pretty much everywhere that mentions it. His, on the other hand, is mentioned pretty much everywhere but never linked to, so it may not be available online at all (copyright?)
[Removed links. Please don't link them here again. Take it to e-mail if you have to. --PJ]
[Sorry, didn't mean to step on any toes. -- kassyopeia]
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I am adamantly against rampant casual hitlerization.
I don't see it as all that casual in this particular case, the Xenocide/Holocaust analogy seems superficially appropriate. The problem with the essay is that it's for the most part an exercise in circular reasoning, IMO - the author starts from the assumption that the analogy extends far below the surface, and goes on to demonstrate that the analogy holds, given the assumption. If A, then A. In the end, we learn much more about her mindset than about Ender or Card. Sigh. Incidentally, it's exactly the same failing we were criticizing in Card's "The Dark Knight" review the other day. But at least he had something of an excuse: bad sound. Radford's blinkers are entirely of her own making.
I'd have liked to quote some examples to back up the above, but I don't think I'm allowed:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: kassyopeia, we have been asked not to link to it from here.
I know it's generally considered bad form to criticize forum policies, but that is by far the most inane one I've ever come across. Does Card have so little confidence in his work and/or his audience that he thinks something like this would harm his image? One doesn't need to hide one's accusers, if they have as bad a case as this one, especially if anybody can find them via google in a matter of seconds. Attempting to do so just makes one look weak. What one does is ignore them. Believe it or not, this bothers me more than all of his political opinion pieces put together, no matter how much I may disagree with those.
So... how are those two contradictory, exactly? Are you saying interesting context can only be provided by texts that can be taken at face value?
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone actually wrote a much better criticism of Ender's Game I think. This person also sited Alice Miller, which made the article quite cool and intelligent.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You probably mean the one by John Kessel, right? I find it a lot more reasonable but not all that much more insightful. A large portion of the essay consists in pointing out contradictions in the novel's characterizations and ethics, but most of them don't seem valid to me, either because they only exist if one interprets things in a certain way, or because they are very intentional contradictions.
Am I allowed to quote from that one here, do you think?
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem with Kessel's essay is that, until Ender found the Hive Queen and Understood, the xenocide was absolutely justified. Ender is absolved of wrongdoing not just because he had no idea he was committing genocide, but because committing genocide was necessary to save the human race.
Also, Kessel's notion that the book is so popular because abused children identify with it is really pretty bizarre.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foolish people? It was a conversation with a variety of viewpoints, at the worst an argument between people (like Card) who value only personal intent when judging people and others who are less patient with people who do terrible things while acting in ignorance. After all, what did Ender think he was training for, the Winter Olympics?
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think the issue with linking it here is that it encourages trolls to trainwreck valid discussions so its better to be safe then sorry.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: the xenocide was absolutely justified. Ender is absolved of wrongdoing not just because he had no idea he was committing genocide, but because committing genocide was necessary to save the human race.
"Absolutely justified" is a problematic concept. It comes down to the question of whether or not it is acceptable "to kill somebody because you think he might try at some time in the future to kill you." Radford, for one, says that it certainly is not - but I think she may be basing that on the unspoken and invalid assumption that both parties are subject to the rule of law, with the power to protect and punish. The appropriate analogy to war, however, is a situation in which there is no higher authority. And that changes things drastically, many would indeed consider it quite acceptable, or even virtuous, to kill someone who poses a risk to one or others under one's protection.
In the end, this comes down to the question of whether one believes in such a thing as an absolute morality. If one does, then self-defence may not always be sufficient to justify an act that would otherwise be wrong. If not, if one regards morality as an ultimately arbitrary set of rules whose prime purpose it is to ensure survival of entities above that of self (family, community, species), then self-defence is sufficient by definition (cf. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers").
quote:Originally posted by Clumpy: an argument between people (like Card) who value only personal intent when judging people and others who are less patient with people who do terrible things while acting in ignorance.
The problem I have with the essay is, as I said, that he claims to be finding contradictions everywhere. Along the lines of "either Ender is guilty, or he shouldn't be feeling guilty, Card can't make up his mind." This is clearly absurd. If someone tells you he'll give you a cookie if you press a button, and you press the button, which causes the deaths of many people, then most people would consider you guiltless, and yet would be surprised and worried if you didn't feel guilty.
quote:After all, what did Ender think he was training for, the Winter Olympics?
He thought he was training for a fight for survival. How is that a "terrible thing"?
One question that is being raised in both essays is whether, if Hitler and people like him truly believed that they also were fighting for survival, it justifies their actions to an extent or in full. I have to admit that the question makes me somewhat uncomfortable. However, I don't think we're really forced to answer it one way or the other, because there are many objective factors that differentiate mass killings of the Holocaust variety from mass killings of the "Ender's Game" or Hiroshima variety. Nothing, for example, can excuse the numerous forms of cruelty that invariably precede the actual killing in the former.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: the xenocide was absolutely justified. Ender is absolved of wrongdoing not just because he had no idea he was committing genocide, but because committing genocide was necessary to save the human race.
"Absolutely justified" is a problematic concept. It comes down to the question of whether or not it is acceptable "to kill somebody because you think he might try at some time in the future to kill you." Radford, for one, says that it certainly is not - but I think she may be basing that on the unspoken and invalid assumption that both parties are subject to the rule of law, with the power to protect and punish. The appropriate analogy to war, however, is a situation in which there is no higher authority. And that changes things drastically, many would indeed consider it quite acceptable, or even virtuous, to kill someone who poses a risk to one or others under one's protection.
In the end, this comes down to the question of whether one believes in such a thing as an absolute morality. If one does, then self-defence may not always be sufficient to justify an act that would otherwise be wrong. If not, if one regards morality as an ultimately arbitrary set of rules whose prime purpose it is to ensure survival of entities above that of self (family, community, species), then self-defence is sufficient by definition (cf. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers").
I think you took my use of "absolute" in a way I didn't mean it to be taken. Let's just say "justified". At any rate, it was justified because there was every reason to believe the buggers wanted to wipe out humanity. They attacked twice, humans survived by luck, mostly, and there was every reason to think they would be attacked again. So they struck. I don't have much time for any "moral" argument that arrives at the conclusion that humans as a species should allow themselves to be destroyed rather than destroy another species hellbent on their demise. So I guess if I believe in the concept of absolute morality, I believe it contains a self-defense provision.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: the xenocide was absolutely justified. Ender is absolved of wrongdoing not just because he had no idea he was committing genocide, but because committing genocide was necessary to save the human race.
"Absolutely justified" is a problematic concept. It comes down to the question of whether or not it is acceptable "to kill somebody because you think he might try at some time in the future to kill you." Radford, for one, says that it certainly is not - but I think she may be basing that on the unspoken and invalid assumption that both parties are subject to the rule of law, with the power to protect and punish. The appropriate analogy to war, however, is a situation in which there is no higher authority. And that changes things drastically, many would indeed consider it quite acceptable, or even virtuous, to kill someone who poses a risk to one or others under one's protection.
In the end, this comes down to the question of whether one believes in such a thing as an absolute morality. If one does, then self-defence may not always be sufficient to justify an act that would otherwise be wrong. If not, if one regards morality as an ultimately arbitrary set of rules whose prime purpose it is to ensure survival of entities above that of self (family, community, species), then self-defence is sufficient by definition (cf. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers").
I think you took my use of "absolute" in a way I didn't mean it to be taken. Let's just say "justified". At any rate, it was justified because there was every reason to believe the buggers wanted to wipe out humanity. They attacked twice, humans survived by luck, mostly, and there was every reason to think they would be attacked again. So they struck. I don't have much time for any "moral" argument that arrives at the conclusion that humans as a species should allow themselves to be destroyed rather than destroy another species hellbent on their demise. So I guess if I believe in the concept of absolute morality, I believe it contains a self-defense provision.
After having wiped out formics from a number of solar systems without seeing any aggression in response, do you not think the powers-that-be should have tried to open diplomatic channels or, at least, have paused to try and ascertain the formics' intentions?
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: the powers-that-be should have tried to open diplomatic channels or, at least, have paused to try and ascertain the formics' intentions
Well, how do you do that if you don't know how to communicate? The success of the campaign was based as much on surprise as on Ender's skill, so by stopping or even delaying it, they would have increased the probability of failure. So, again, it comes down to risking the destruction of one's own species on the one hand, and perpetrating the destruction of another species on the other.
My impression is that for most people, this is a matter of degrees. One's own species is more important than another, but not infinitely more important. So, if the risk is significant, xenocide is justified, if the risk is insignificant, it is not. The IF believed the formics to be a significant risk, and it's hard to argue with that, given the history.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, getting back to the original question of the thread: where can one find OSC's original rebuttal of Elaine Radford's essay? If not available online, it would be good to get a reference to a printed version or a general direction for search: publication, approximate date.
I gotta say that if such a controversial piece of writing is intentionally kept from public, it surely looks bad. I give OSC all the benefit of the doubt since I am reading him for years, and he mostly sounds genuinely honest (I have small quibbles about some of his political writing but I do not yet take it seriously). Tht said, I can take a badly written rebuttal, emotional, incoherent, whatever it may be. However, in the absense of the text, I cannot help but suspect the absolute worst.
It would be good to read the rebuttal. Google did not help so far. Anyone?
EDIT: Ok, I've read Radford's essay. Perhaps, I should have done it before asking the question. It does not hold at all in my view. It is superficial and self-serving. No wonder that the author herself quotes the most common refutal as "I don't see it" rather than "I disagree". The points she tries to connect aren't there.
It would still be entertqaining to read Card's rebuttal but I have an idea about its content now.
posted
No, it actually makes sense. Read various things by Alice Miller and read Inventing the Child. Thing is, abused and black pedagogy is more prevalant than people want to think of. If children are angry as a result of it, there's not always an outlet for that rage... They can't really take it out on their parents or something so it internalizes, or they may take it out on other people, but a lot of the time they can't really address it.
Also, having read that series several times and that not so good book Ender in Exile I feel like my opinions on the series have changed and that it's kind of a bit warped. Especially since if Ender's parents were so smart, why didn't they do anything about Peter bullying his younger siblings? It was messed up the way he treated them.
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: The biggest problem with Kessel's essay is that, until Ender found the Hive Queen and Understood, the xenocide was absolutely justified. Ender is absolved of wrongdoing not just because he had no idea he was committing genocide, but because committing genocide was necessary to save the human race.
Also, Kessel's notion that the book is so popular because abused children identify with it is really pretty bizarre.
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: the powers-that-be should have tried to open diplomatic channels or, at least, have paused to try and ascertain the formics' intentions
Well, how do you do that if you don't know how to communicate? The success of the campaign was based as much on surprise as on Ender's skill, so by stopping or even delaying it, they would have increased the probability of failure. So, again, it comes down to risking the destruction of one's own species on the one hand, and perpetrating the destruction of another species on the other.
My impression is that for most people, this is a matter of degrees. One's own species is more important than another, but not infinitely more important. So, if the risk is significant, xenocide is justified, if the risk is insignificant, it is not. The IF believed the formics to be a significant risk, and it's hard to argue with that, given the history.
The inability to communicate is obviously a complicating factor. Were any attempts even made to try to overcome this? More to the point, in my view, in order to justify something as extreme as xenocide you would need to 1) know that the formics intended to inflict something of the order of xenocide on humans, and 2) know that the formics had the capability to do this.
After the absence of any aggressive act by the formics (no, C3P0, I don't regard firing back on some actively attacking you an act of aggression), I think 1) should have been called into question. After a plethora of successes against formics, 2) should have been called into question. Additionally, the formics did not use any weapon akin to the MDD.
The following course of action would seem to have been open to them- they anticipate that they will successfully wipe-out some colonies and have colony ships depart prior to actual successes, and so insure against human extinction. Drastic, sure. But I think less so than committing xenocide.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Also, having read that series several times and that not so good book Ender in Exile I feel like my opinions on the series have changed and that it's kind of a bit warped. Especially since if Ender's parents were so smart, why didn't they do anything about Peter bullying his younger siblings? It was messed up the way he treated them.
What sort of answer are you looking for? In-universe or why Card wrote it that way?
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: The inability to communicate is obviously a complicating factor. Were any attempts even made to try to overcome this?
I don't think so. For humans, communication means exchange of signals at close range, and they were never in a position to try. Anyway, we know from the Lusitania trilogy that it wouldn't have worked. The question is if, once they realized that telepathy was involved, there was a research program into using the Ansible to establish contact. I think we can again say that it wouldn't have worked, considering how much difficulty the Formics had in establishing contact with Ender, given how advanced their understanding of the technology was. Nevertheless, you're making a good point - if we apply Card's "intentions are everything, actions are nothing" maxim to this, the attempt would have been an important ethical factor, the lack of success less so.
quote:More to the point, in my view, in order to justify something as extreme as xenocide you would need to 1) know that the formics intended to inflict something of the order of xenocide on humans, and 2) know that the formics had the capability to do this.
I agree in principle, but I'd again replace "know that" with "know that there is a significant risk that". Then, the answer to both questions is clearly yes. Humans knew little about the Formics intentions, but judging by their past actions, had reason to assume that the Formics didn't value human life in the least, so wouldn't have any moral reservations about committing xenocide (from their point of view... maybe "anthro(po)cide" from ours?) That in itself constitutes a significant risk. Along the same lines, they had the technology to construct planetary-scale weapons, which again constitutes a significant risk.
quote:The following course of action would seem to have been open to them- they anticipate that they will successfully wipe-out some colonies and have colony ships depart prior to actual successes, and so insure against human extinction. Drastic, sure. But I think less so than committing xenocide.
That's like saying it's acceptable to kill in acute self-defence, but not acceptable to kill for liberty, right? I can respect that view, but it's unusual.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Graff/Mazer had outright stated to Ender that the IF tried everything they could during the two invasions to communicate with the Formics, all attempted failed. The entire part with Ender suffering from nightmares was the Formics in turn trying to figure out their own way to communicate to the humans by using Ender as a bridge but were too little too late.
Part of the problem is that the formics assumed that the Humans were also one whole "hive" and not a collection of individuals.
IP: Logged |
quote:Graff/Mazer had outright stated to Ender that the IF tried everything they could during the two invasions to communicate with the Formics, all attempted failed.
The more interesting time period is the one beginning after the taking of Eros, though. I don't recall anyone addressing that aspect.
quote:Part of the problem is that the formics assumed that the Humans were also one whole "hive" and not a collection of individuals.
Either that, or simply animals of no consequence. Card never makes that quite clear, probably because neither assumption completely makes sense.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem I have with the essay is, as I said, that he claims to be finding contradictions everywhere. Along the lines of "either Ender is guilty, or he shouldn't be feeling guilty, Card can't make up his mind." This is clearly absurd. If someone tells you he'll give you a cookie if you press a button, and you press the button, which causes the deaths of many people, then most people would consider you guiltless, and yet would be surprised and worried if you didn't feel guilty.
I think the article overreaches - I was only referring to the XKCD forumites who didn't take the article writer's conclusions quite so far.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
