posted
Because of recent threads I read "Creating the Innocent Killer" by John Kessel.
He says many a time that morality is not based on intentions, but on result. Long story short, Ender is a killer, and should be seen by the result, that he killed and survived relatively unharmed and is therefore evil.
From my understanding, the commandment in the bible originally read "Thou shall not murder." Not "Thou shall not kill.
In defense of your life, your loved ones, your way of life, your country or your morality I believe that killing can be good, in the good and evil sense.
The act of taking life is, in and of itself, neither intrinsically good nor evil. The morality of an act of violence depends entirely on the circumstances and motivations.
For instance, the death penalty: Once an individual has proven him/herself to be a threat to society, by committing a violent crime, society has the right to permanently remove that threat. Personally I feel rape and molestation should be death offences. The ripples of harm caused by such offences are widespread and hard to pin down. Often molesters were molested, and a chain of negative causality is created.
Also the knowledge that such actions will not be tolerated by society would be a large deterrent.
Is killing for revenge justice? I say no, two wrongs yadda yadda, but killing to remove a proven threat is not revenge, it is self preservation.
Killing, tools for killing (i.e. weapons), money, power etc. are not evil in and of themselves, but can be evil if used for evil, and can be good if used for good.
So, is Ender an "Innocent Killer"? I say yes. His intentions where that of self preservation. He did not start the troubles that led to the confrontations.
We live in a world of greys, not clear blacks and whites, rights and wrongs. It would be nice, so very nice if it were so easy: killing is wrong. But life isn't simple, life isn't easy. We must use our hearts and our minds and choose what we believe is right and wrong.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
All of those who used the "game" and created the charade were killers. And justified in what they did according to basic self-preservation.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, is Ender an "Innocent Killer"? I say yes. His intentions where that of self preservation. He did not start the troubles that led to the confrontations.
I imagine Ender might disagree with you.
If, ya know, he were a real person and all.
At least as far as the Formics are concerned, he wasn't trying for self preservation, but rather for comfort. Despite how hard Graff and Rackham were pushing him, I don't believe that he would have actually died from their efforts. So, in a way, he "cheated" in the last game, killing nearly every living Formic, merely for his own comfort.
That may, of course, be an oversimplification.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think OSC deliberately made the distinction hazy, partly so that we'd have a debate like this.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
although on the overall topic I would have to say killing is never a good thing. however it is not always a bad thing at all.
we all know there are legitimate circumstances for killing where the person turn out to be a hero. (armed forces for example)
And self defense is always valid is your life is definetly threatened.
on the ender issue. you could argue that the two kids he killed makes him slightly evil (even if he didn;t know it), because he could have simply left it when they were beaten up. however you could also say that the way he was being treated and also (for his first kill at least), his fear of his brother may have affected his anger towards the boy and was why he just didn;t want him to ever cause a threat to him again.
not once did I think through the whole ender series that ender was once truly a bad person at any one point.
Posts: 28 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of that is the power of point of view. We identify with the character whose viewpoint we share. If Hamlet can be a protagonist, with his scheming and murder, we can sure give a picked upon kid a pass.
None of this means Ender cannot be defended impartially, but when we are immersed in his story we are by no means impartial.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, is Ender an "Innocent Killer"? I say yes. His intentions where that of self preservation. He did not start the troubles that led to the confrontations.
I imagine Ender might disagree with you.
If, ya know, he were a real person and all.
At least as far as the Formics are concerned, he wasn't trying for self preservation, but rather for comfort. Despite how hard Graff and Rackham were pushing him, I don't believe that he would have actually died from their efforts. So, in a way, he "cheated" in the last game, killing nearly every living Formic, merely for his own comfort.
That may, of course, be an oversimplification.
But again, he didn't know that he was actually killing anyone. He thought he was playing a game.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bean knew he was killing them, or at least had an idea, should he have felt any guilt? Or did he truly belive in what the IF was doing?
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is the morality in dieing when you could have fought and lived?
Interestingly enough OSC spends not a little bit of time examining the qualatative judgements of Enders actions and motivations within that 'verse in the subsequent books.
From a moral perspective I believe that even had he known he was killing the Formics he would still be innocent of thier deaths. The issue was not one of who was right or wrong but an inability to communicate in any basic fashion.
Often when a person begins to discuss the morality of killing they most likely have never been in a situation that warrants it. Thankfully I have not so I fall in that same category.
The reason I bring this up is because of the rift between the theory of things and how they actually work.
Think how early humanity had to survive. There was always somthing or somone meaner so if you didnt kill you didnt survive. I submit that for an individual in that situation the highest morality is surviving because the alternative is oblivion.
Such is not the case in todays slightly more civilized world. However in the fictional circumstances created in Enders Game take in to account that there was no dialogue, no knowledge of the formics that indicated anything other than a formidable foe that was willing to uncaringly annihilate humanity. There was no society between the formics and humanity to allow morality to be considered.
In short, for Bean or Ender to be immoral the IF would have to be. I don't consider it immoral to seek to prevent the utter distruction of humankind. But being human lends a little bias I suppose. Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The morality of an act of violence depends entirely on the circumstances and motivations.
I think that circumstances and motivations are important to consider, but I disagree that they are the only things that determine the morality of an act. I believe that certain things are immoral regardless of how good the motivation or intention may be.
quote:For instance, the death penalty: Once an individual has proven him/herself to be a threat to society, by committing a violent crime, society has the right to permanently remove that threat.
The tricky part about this is in trying to prove that an individual is a permanent threat to society.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I guess I made that statement too open, specifically I was speaking about the taking of life.
And yes, it is difficult to prove reasonably that someone did something, but once you have proved they have done it once, I am of the mind that that in and of itself proves that they are a permanant threat to society. Or to put it anyother, once you have shown that someone has done something that is a threat to society or it's members (murder, rape, kidnapping, treason, political bribery, etc) the only way to make sure they can not do it again is to remove them from this life.
One strike and you are out.
The essay that I read that upset OSC so much in a different thread was saying that OSC diliberatly set up Ender to receave sympathy from the readers, so that his crimes would be excused. OSC has said that this essay was a personal attack pretending to be a negitave review. Personally I just think the review itself was bunk.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, it is difficult to prove reasonably that someone did something, but once you have proved they have done it once, I am of the mind that that in and of itself proves that they are a permanant threat to society. Or to put it anyother, once you have shown that someone has done something that is a threat to society or it's members (murder, rape, kidnapping, treason, political bribery, etc) the only way to make sure they can not do it again is to remove them from this life.
One strike and you are out.
So you don't believe that people are capable of rehabilitation?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way to make sure is to remove them. The process of rehabilitation in it's very nature provides for the risk of failure becaus it is not a perfect system.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are plenty of crimes that shouldn't be death sentences. And yes, I do believe that people can change their lives if they want to. If they want to is not good enough.
quote:Prison sentences for rape are not uniform. A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 9.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. This follows the typical pattern for violent crimes in the US, where those convicted typically serve no more than half of their sentence
Five and half years for rape? Locked into a facility with other violent offenders, raping and murdering each other, doing drugs and discussing crime. This is rehabilitation?
I believe that society has a right to protect itself. RunningBear said it well...the only way to make sure...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Five and half years for rape? Locked into a facility with other violent offenders, raping and murdering each other, doing drugs and discussing crime. This is rehabilitation?
You've already stated that you're not concerned about whether rehabilitation is even possible anyway, so I'm not sure why this statistic would even matter to you. In any case, the inadequacy of the rehabilitation system is not in itself a good reason to bypass the sytem altogether in favor of just killing people.
quote:I believe that society has a right to protect itself.
In every one of the examples that you cited earlier, I believe there are many instances where the death penalty is too severe, both in terms of punishment and in terms of protecting society.
I can completely understand why people may feel that the best way to protect society from the worst of its criminals is by killing them. However, one has to be careful that by "protecting society" you don't end up killing people for crimes that have not been committed based merely on some perceived probability. And that's what I'm afraid would happen with the "One strike and you are out" method. Sure, you might be making society safer, but you'd also be making society "safer" by monitoring people's thoughts and removing any of those people that are deemed to be "threatening."
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally get where you are coming from...slippery slope and the like.
My real problem is I have almost no faith in our political or judicial system. The law makers and the law enforcers...so when push comes to shove, those are the people I'm advocating should have the power to kill us.
*sigh*
Rapists should die. Our system should work. I don't know anymore.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf, if you have no faith in our political or judicial system, then why would you want to grant those systems more power and responsibility, specifically by expanding the list of capital crimes and advocating "one strike and you're out"?
The system can't administer current capital cases fairly and equitably, so why on Earth would you advocate more state-sponsored killing?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see a system of government that worked somewhat like this... (Like Starship Troopers did kinda)
Minor crimes (stealing, tax evasion, and fraud) would be punishable by a beating in front of the court house, then they would be set free.
Major crimes (murder, rape) would be punishable by death immediately after the offense, a quick trial then hanged.
Once again this is kinda the system used in the Starship Troopers book. Perhaps after a few criminals were flogged and hanged other criminals would thinks twice before breaking the law.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of cource! why else do normal people not commit crimes if not for the fear of being caught? you see people speed as the worse thing that will happen is a ticket, imagine if the cop was allowed to savagly beat you, would u still be doing 68?
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering how large a role circumstances and intention have in determining the extent of a person's guilt, do you have a way to increase the accuracy of convictions for offences and to completely remove any doubt as to whether the punishment is absolutely warranted? At least our current system allows you to appeal before possibly being wrongfully put to death, or to challenge whether it would be fair to be beaten for trying to rush your wife to the hospital.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main reason why we have crime is because there is a chance that crime pays, if we make a society where crime will "never" pay, then most if not all crime will be eradicated...
Starship Troopers laid out a good system because it was the simplest form of punishment, do bad get punished. Today all we have is a legal system where murderers and rapists can live out there life with very little punishment to the crime they committed. Therefore this is not upholding the law this is a way to prolong it...
People shouldn't be good because they are afraid of punishment, they should be good because good is the only path that pays off. The problem we have today is that most likely crime pays.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Good people don't commit crimes because they consider it immoral, or unethical, to do so.
Agreed.
quote: Fear of punishment has nothing to do with it.
That I do not agree with. It certainly helps with impulse control.
What are morals though? Are they not simply that which is instilled on us by society? The morals and ethics of one culture may not be that of another; are you saying that simply because someone does not conform to your set of moral beliefs that they are not good people?
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: What are morals though? Are they not simply that which is instilled on us by society? The morals and ethics of one culture may not be that of another; are you saying that simply because someone does not conform to your set of moral beliefs that they are not good people?
This draws us into the quagmire of moral relativism vs absolutism. For example, I read today at Wikipedia that the Middle East has a long tradition of using diplomats as a guarantee for a nation's conduct. When a nation broke a treaty, it's diplomats would be punished or executed. Some hold this up as a reason for the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. I and most Westerners think it was an evil act though. Is that because of the long Western tradition that heralds and ambassadors are sacrosanct? Sure, but I agree with that, because without that tradition, now backed up by the Vienna Convention, diplomacy becomes far more difficult. Without communication, conflict and war become more likely.
Morals are not solely what is indoctrinated into us as children, we must have some conscious input as well. So, I guess I do think simplistically that when a person or group "does not conform to your set of moral beliefs that they are not good people." How else can you define good and bad? If you go for full-blown moral relativism there is no real good and bad. They become societal constructs with no formal meaning.
But I'm not a moral absolutist either. Actions have to be taken in context, including societal. I suppose I shoot for the razors' edge between absolutism and relativism, which many philosophers deny exists. me balancing-->
Connor: Now you will receive us. Murphy: We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry. Connor: We do not want your tired and sick. Murphy: It is your corrupt we claim. Connor: It is your evil that will be sought by us. Murphy: With every breath, we shall hunt them down. Connor: Each day we will spill their blood, 'til it rains down from the skies. Murphy: Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. Connor: These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. Murphy: There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth, not to push the bounds and cross over, in to true corruption, into our domain. Connor: For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day you will reap it. Murphy: And we will send you to whatever god you wish.
I dont care about the movie reference but they have the right idea.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote from War Chief is from The Boondock Saints, a movie about brothers who take up vigilantisum. Apparently, the quote is almost word for word from a SWAT motto.
I don't know about vigilanties...is it right for citizens to take justice into their own hands? Morally I don't have a huge problem with it, but how long can you kill monsters before coming one yourself?
Our system might be broken, bogged down with greed, stupidity and over sentimentality, but at least it makes every effort to be fair. There is no appeal from a bullet, and as camus pointed out, how do you know someone is guilty?
Is it a worse crime to punish one innocent man or to let ten gulty men go free?
I wish our system was streamlined. Every law on the books wrtten in plain wording, so that no interpritation was nessessary. I wish that old laws would be removed, or updated. I wish that we did not have opposing councel, but a pannel of judges with independant, unbiased investigators. I wish those judges would have to pass serious physcological and legal knowlege tests, and could be voted off the bench by the county they represent. I wish we had a system where there were only three punishments, fines, public flogging and death. I wish rapests would be removed from this earth instead of spending five and a half years honing their psychotic mind and then being freed to reek havoc on society. I wish the questions of morality where simple and easy to answer.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think many of the problems that plague our legal system are ones that would affect any system that doesn't compromise many of the freedoms that we enjoy.
Yes, the legal system is very complicated, perhaps too complicated, but as we've already come to understand, so is morality. The Golden Rule and similar principles may be good to live one's life by, but they just are not a practical way of settling disputes. There are always exceptions upon exceptions to every rule, such as is the case with killing someone. And the ambiguous nature of many words increases the possibility of misinterpreting the law, which is why the law uses very specific terminilogy, which unfortunately is not always clearly understood by the common person.
If you're going to impose harsher penalties, you have to be pretty certain of someone's guilt. Yes, rapists should face a harsher penalty than a few years in prison, but how can you be absolutely certain that it wasn't at least a bit consensual in nature. Witnesses can lie about how events took place which means that a few people could conspire to have someone legally put to death even though no crime may have actually taken place. Of course, without witnesses it's one person's word against the other's, which also should not be enough to put someone to death.
And with the courts having so much power over the fate of one's life, the law should be pretty specific regarding what determines death over say flogging. Of course, as the law gets more and more specific it will seem more and more complicated, which might create even more corruption.
And flogging or beating is hardly a more fair way of administering justice. Flogging a twenty year old would have have a very different effect than would flogging an eighty year old. For some, flogging may essentially be the death sentence. Is that fair?
In any case, I'm not sure that harsher punishments is necessarily the answer to the problems we see. After all, corruption and greed is something that any system is going to have to fight against, not just ours. And as long as corruption and greed exist, I'm not to eager to give even more power to the governments. The only thing it might do is deter some future criminals, but at what price? I'm not convinced that it is worth it.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say that the effect of flogging a twenty-year old is different than flogging an eighty-year old, and it is. Yet, let's not forget the reason of the flogging. Both have done the same crime both should get the same punishment, what happens because of that punishment is the problem of the convicted. You cannot say one deserves less punishment than another because of some physical ailment, for if you do this you become a broken system that shows criminals to much affection. If you are old and sickly and you know that punishment of any kind could result in your death, then don't commit the crime to begin with.
That's like not sending a seventy-year old to jail because they might not survive in there, let's not forget crime must be punished no matter the circumstance.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
killing as a form of justice is not a detterent to other killers. Why should a death be justified by another death? Yes i believe Ender was an innocent killer because the creators of the simulation manipulated him into thinking that it was fake, a game, a type of training. But, I wouldn't call the manipulators evil, i would just call them coldhearted because at the time this decision on manipulation sounded like the only sane option.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the penal system in the united states has a few flaws regarding consequences to serious crimes. In some states where there is no death penalty eventually killers get let out. This I beleive is a mistake but i also think that the death penalty is completely impractical and unnecessary. Instead of beingl let out sometimes after as little as five years, killers should be kept in jail for life sentences. At an economic standpoint putting someone to death costs more than giving them a life sentence because of allprocesses the lawyers try to impose to try to stop the conviction. Back to Ender, what choice did he have concerning the final battle. His odds where like 1 vs. 1000 and the only possible way of winning was to strike fast and at the core of their civilizations: the hive queen. He beat himself up too much over it. I imagine i would have done the same but i beleive her reconciled himeself by reintroducing the hive queen to Lustitania and by writing the Hive Queen and the Hegemon.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
killers dont think "gee i might get thrown in jail if i kill my worst enemy". they are too stupid to. Unless of course it was unintentional kill.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rapists should die. Our system should work. I don't know anymore. [/QB][/QUOTE]
But the system doesnt work people keep getting raped and rapists will keep raping wether there is or there is not the death penalty. How will killing them deter anything? A more reasonalbe approach would be to pass them through a sort of treatment so that they learn how to care. How to feel. When a child hits another kid, the teacher doesnt slap him in the face and swear at him. The teacher tries to resolve the conflict by working with the child to correct his behavior. Killing for killing is just hypocritical.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If stealing were legal I still wouldn't do it, because I believe it's wrong. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I heard an article on the radio that stated that we have morality implanted in our brains when we first start to live. They called it the "inner chimp" because apparently this behavior is genetically descendant from our ancestors. That morality though, through the process of life, can be irradicated or strenghtened depending on our actions and other peoples actions rubbing off on us.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every law on the books wrtten in plain wording, so that no interpritation was nessessary.
What you wish for is quite simply impossible. Try to define theft, rape, or murder in such a way as to require no interpretation.
quote:killers dont think "gee i might get thrown in jail if i kill my worst enemy". they are too stupid to. Unless of course it was unintentional kill.
Maybe not, but there are certainly people who would be killers if not for the chance of jail and/or death.
I do know that there are drug dealers who flat out won't carry a gun because of the stiff mandatory minimums associated with simultaneous gun and drug possession. I'm not sure that this benefit is outweighed by the number of drug dealers carrying guns who will choose to shoot it out with police rather than surrender because of those mandatory minimums. But there are absolutely people deterred by those laws.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
but a lifetime of jail time would be as equaly or more deterant than death. oh and not to mention cheaper!
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Naitsabes is reffering to the amount of time used up in court and appeals etc. . . the whole process is costly due to the amount of appeals that a prisoner is allowed however if found guilty once the whole process SHOULD only cost about.. as much as a 9mm bullet.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think that further evidence should be looked for, that death row is a good idea, but once someone is found guilty, I think it ought to be permanent unless sufficient evidence that makes it impossible for them to be the perpetrator arises.
posted
Its not the injection or the means of death inteslf it is actually the process. Paying lawyers, time, the appelas process, everything costs money and time. Also the means of killing can sometimes misfunction and that it never pretty. If youve seen pictures of flawed execution you know what im talking about. It is cruel and unusual punishment...
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand what you're saying. I don't understand why you said it in response to my post. Could you please explain the connection between my post and your response?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
