Quarto said:
What I did, was state the incredibly obvious - that you can't discuss morality outside of the context of religion, because there is no such thing as morality without religion. That's the difference between morality and common sense - one tells us that an action is right or wrong no matter what, while the other tells us that an action is right or wrong only because of the way the world might react to it.
Well, that is obvious. Some would say there is a morality without religion... but that statement have to be based on some dogmatici belief, since it can be proven, what makes it a sort of religion on its own.
(...not that this would explain why we're discussing this stuff in a threat titled "Chris Roberts", mind you
)
He might be surprised if he tries to google himself + religion + morality + temblor bomb + wing commander someday.
Ok, I actually responded to this post on friday at work, but unfortunately our network was messed up somehow for most of the day, so I wasn't able to actually post my post. As usual, I don't feel like retyping what I wrote... so this is gonna be the short version, where I reply in point format without quoting what I'm replying to
.
Still not sure if that's good or bad.
1. Genocide is a
technical term. It doesn't matter how many nations do it. It doesn't matter if
all nations do it - it still becomes no less meaningful. All it means is that human history is pretty bloody and violent... which I'm sure is no surprise to anyone. And again, I'd like to stress the fact that as a technical term, genocide carries with it
no moral connotations whatsoever. Even if we couldn't come up with any "good" genocide (I'd be quite happy to discuss further the Aztec example I brought up earlier - but not in this thread).
2. We don't need to weigh the evil of the T-Bomb against anything - not according to the Catechism fragments you posted (in particular, 2314). There is nothing,
nothing at all that can be used to argue that the T-Bomb was morally justified. It doesn't matter that it's a Just War - because it cannot possibly remain just once you resort to unjust means.
3. "not every single Confederation citizens is bound by these rules"... so? The people in charge (...if they happen to follow this particular moral system) certainly can't be expected to disregard their morals. This is
particularly true in a democracy, where the leaders were elected based not only on their abilities but also character. Democratically-elected leaders are more than anyone obliged to
be themselves.
4. The possible results of not using the T-Bomb are just that - a possibility. Naturally, if Confed chooses to do nothing, that possibility will come true. But the idea isn't to do nothing, it's to keep fighting using just means - and even if things are looking 100% hopeless... hell, no,
especially when things are looking 100% hopeless, that's when you
really show what you're made of. A person who, faced with a hopeless situation, abandons his moral values just to get out alive simply has no backbone. And maybe it will result in enslavement - but maybe it'll also save everybody without the moral price. Heck, ask yourself this - if Confed had refused to use the T-Bomb, and finally won the war through conventional means, would Tolwyn have ever put his genocidal plan into action? Is it not possible that by committing one genocide, Confed triggered another one, this time to be inflicted on human beings? Heh, as far as consequences go, that sure would be pretty Biblical
.
5. To everybody else reading here - no, neither I nor Delance are arguing that Confed is Catholic. We're not even saying they're Christian. But when discussing morality in a fictional universe, there's really very little else you can do other than discuss the morality of a given action from
your point of view. Well, that, and to try to figure out what Blair and company thought, in order to work out whether the action in question was moral from their point of view.
1. It's not only a cold, technical term, it has a strong emotional reaction attached to it, and it's used to describe horrible crimes, not actions that wouldn't be considered deliberate. But since we are using it as a merely technical term, than, there's no reason to argue this further.
2. It’s simple to analyze an isolated situation. In theory, there’s no problem. But, in theory, what if not using the T-Bomb was even
worst than using it?
3. I agree with that, but only if the leader is a good guy.
4. The war had already cost trillions of lives. The daily cost was horrific, especially on the more combat intensive parts like the one about to happen. To conventionally win the war arguably would cost even more. To use the T-Bomb would make the killing stop. That is common sense, and a sound utilitarian argument, but pointless from a moral point of view.
When it comes to balancing means and ends, the T-Bomb is probably so wrong it can’t be justified by any end. The only defense would be to argue against the consequences of not using it.
But that's problematic on its own. To use such a weapon could be a sign of desperation. That would be wrong, and could mean a loss of Faith in mankind, even Faith in God. Using that weapon could harm humanity because it attacks our values. It attacks what defines us. If we have to become less human more like the Kilrathi to win over them, what kind of victory that is? You're right about that part. That's a question addressed on WCIV. Since mankind had to become a little more like the Kilrathi to win the war, why not go all the way? That's why Tolwyn claims it was a fluke, and not a clear veredict. Had Confed won on conventional terms, it could be very different. Had Confed not used the T-Bomb, there would be no WC4, and no WCP either.
It's almost the reverse of that ancient Mandarin story from WC2. "The original Mandarins were continuously invaded by the Mongols, but conquered the invaders by converting them to the Mandarin way of life." So, instead of converting the invaders, the invaded would convert themselves.
As a side note, I don’ remember if the Mandarins actually used angle on their propaganda or were just traitors.
On the other hand, for a leader to risk allowing the Kilrathi to kill and enslave billions of people so just he wouldn't have to get his hands dirty can also be problematic. Maybe Confed would win the war, but there would be a terrible cost in lives. A lot of people that otherwise would live would be sacrificed for the sake of the leader's morality. You can turn the other cheek, but you can't take that decision for billions of innocent people unaware of the moral dilemma.
5. Yeah, I fear some could be offended by the slight mention of religion. I almost put spoiler tags on the subject. But it so happens that the Just War doctrine itself is not as religious as people might think, it’s a moral theory about what would make the act of war justifiable. The fact that the present was form it was written by a Catholic priest doesn’t invalidate it. If I mentioned the Big Bang theory, there wouldn’t be the same reaction.
Bandit LOAF said:
For one thing, you're forgetting that the Kilrathi aren't furry humans.
Of course not. But they do have goatees on occasion.
Seriously, I was not saying they were simplistic. The part you snipped made that clear.
They don't have a single monolithic government that owns and commands all their warships -- rather, warships are sponsored and controlled by individual clans - who can ultimately do what they want with them..
"Paladin: Their entire culture is based on a strict, centralised hierarchy: ‘All roads lead to Kilrah’. Every Kilrathi lives and dies for the Emperor. Destroy that hierarchy… and you destroy them."
I don't mention this to argue, but to corroborate the point.
Second, the government doesn't order all its ships to the site of the ceremony. Rather, those ships which are not needed on the front are allowed to go. Look at the Ras Nik'hra - it was supposed to be part of a strike force forming at N'Tanya for an attack on the Deneb Sector. (Thrakhath does bring in additional forces from the front lines *after* things go awry... but that's in direct response to the marine attack).
The Empire proper simply has no choice but to allow the ships to go - look at Thrakhath in Secret Missions 2... he wasn't manipulating his fleet by their adherence to the Cult, he was incredibly frustrated by it. When the leader has to shoot his generals to force them to fight against their religious objections, you have a pretty good suggestion that there's a gulf between state and religion.
Even more important, though, you're wrong about separation of religion and government with this example. The United States Navy does its darndest to keep its ships in port at Christmas, for instance. Look at the attack on Pearl Harbor -- one of the reasons it was so effective was because it was routine for ships to stand down for Sunday morning church services.
Another minor point - the Cult of Sivar is what the majority of Kilrathi believe in... but it is *not* a universal cultural religion. That's something that gets overlooked, but it's also very important in creating a more 3D picture of the Kilrathi as a species.
I appreciate the Pearl Harbor analogy, but as you are aware the US was not at war at that point. Of course a military force would do what they can to lift the morale. Besides, this is a much more debated issue now than on the 40's.
One interesting thing is that the Sivar cerimony is so important to the Empire that disrupting it becomes tempting to the Confederation. One of those Wing Commander politically incorrect moments: Confed makes a daring covert operation to strike and disrupt what is hardly a standard military target, for the purpose of psychological warfare.
What it's so nice about this feudal aspect of the Kilrathi, with their clans sponsoring ships, is that it's it's not simply filler, and important to the story. I was re-reading some of the dialogue for SM2, and they did a great job setting up the story.