Values/Ethics in WC

No, you can't necessarily call them evil. It's their actions that determine that... and a number of the Kilrathi do live up to that reputation, unfortunately.

I agree with Delance. You have to be truthful first of all, and to be frank, the Kilrathi, while not entirely evil by any means, have what humans view as 'evil' tendencies... namely overagression and a warlike nature.
 
Don't forget that Forstchen's own political ideals shine through the novels repeatedly.
 
Delance said:
Good, let's have some moral relativism here. Or not. Can't have a discussion about values without it, apparently. Anyhow, you can choose to call a warlike culture by what it really is, or be politically correct like those peacifists from Fleet Action.
Click to expand...

Politically correct is one of the few thing i really try not to be. I'm not a peacifist either.

What i said(or at least i hope i said) was that a kilrathi isnt EVIL. They are RAISED and INFLUENCED by the KILRATHI around them. The KILRATHI isnt EVIL to be for the sake of EVIL, but because they are INFLUENCED by the KILRATHI CULTURE. If a KILRATHI was RAISED by a HUMAN in the HUMAN SOCIETY, he would probably be very different from other KILRATHI RAISED in the KILRATHI SOCIETY.(probably more agressive than humans though)
 
Just because a kilrathi is a product of his environment doesn't mean you can't call them evil. If a kilrathi is raised in an environment that is a strong proponent of warlike intentions doesn't mean that they are innocent. The kilrathi is a product of their society just as much as a terran pilot is a product of his society. The Kilrathi upbringing made him evil therefore he is evil, hostile, aggressive, warlike, ever ready to commit violence. A product of his surroundings? Yes, but still must be branded for what he is. Similar to Islamic terrorists in today's society...a product of their upbringing? Yes, but still they must be branded as evil, a threat to the good of mainstream society.
 
Maj Striker said:
Just because a kilrathi is a product of his environment doesn't mean you can't call them evil. If a kilrathi is raised in an environment that is a strong proponent of warlike intentions doesn't mean that they are innocent. The kilrathi is a product of their society just as much as a terran pilot is a product of his society. The Kilrathi upbringing made him evil therefore he is evil, hostile, aggressive, warlike, ever ready to commit violence. A product of his surroundings? Yes, but still must be branded for what he is. Similar to Islamic terrorists in today's society...a product of their upbringing? Yes, but still they must be branded as evil, a threat to the good of mainstream society.
Click to expand...

I don't think people are arguing that the Kilrathi are inherently evil, but the Kilrathi Empire was certainly an evil entity. Germans in the 1940s were not evil, but the Nazi regime certainly was. So, the "good v. evil" concept in Wing Commander isn't between Humans and Kilrathi, but the Confederation and the Kilrathi Empire.
 
Maj.Striker said:
Just because a kilrathi is a product of his environment doesn't mean you can't call them evil. If a kilrathi is raised in an environment that is a strong proponent of warlike intentions doesn't mean that they are innocent. The kilrathi is a product of their society just as much as a terran pilot is a product of his society. The Kilrathi upbringing made him evil therefore he is evil, hostile, aggressive, warlike, ever ready to commit violence. A product of his surroundings? Yes, but still must be branded for what he is. Similar to Islamic terrorists in today's society...a product of their upbringing? Yes, but still they must be branded as evil, a threat to the good of mainstream society.
Click to expand...


As the resident Cultural Anthropologist on hand, it is not wise to assume that the kilrathi would share the same biological/environmental traits as humans. In humans there is little doubt that both bio/envo play a role in shaping a humans personality and decision making abilities, however the kilrathi IMO seem to exhibit more genetic disposition towards their aggressive nature. They were born a hunter species, whereas humans are "pathetic descendent of monkeys!" or a prey species. The level to which each factor plays can be considerably different.

And on a side note, concepts of "good" and "evil" like most other things are relative and in the eye of the observer and as such one should define from which POV they are talking about when describing them as good or evil.
 
Dundradal said:
And on a side note, concepts of "good" and "evil" like most other things are relative and in the eye of the observer and as such one should define from which POV they are talking about when describing them as good or evil.
Click to expand...

And we are back on the moral relativism. This can go one indefinitely. Some people don’t believe that good and evil exist at all, and that it all depends on subjective perception. So it’s not that the Kilrathi are truly evil, they are just misunderstood. However, Dund, just because you think "good" and "evil" don't exist, it doesn't actually mean they don't, and it certainly is not reason enough to impugn such comments.

So, a cultural relativist approach would be somewhat like this:

Actually, the Confed military-industrial complex and imperialistic economy is to blame, since they practically provoked the Kilrathi into attacking them, staging the Iason incident hoax. And in a final act of agression, for purely economical reasons, Confed and the war criminal Blair nuked Kilrah, when it’s well known that the Kilrathi were about to surrender. Not to mention to alleged atrocities that were fabrications of Confed Intel, and the wild notions that the peaceful Kilrathi are a warlike culture, which is just propaganda used to justify confed agression.
 
Genetic predisposition or not, the Kilrathi seem to be able to live peacefully, at least on WCIV. It seems more a cultural thing, or else they wouldn't have to have such a cultural apparatus created to enforce these aggressive tendencies. Perhaps the establishment was created to focus aggression towards outsiders as a way to maintain the status quo. Not that it’s bad or anything, it’s just their culture.
 
[Wow, wouldn't have thought that this would raise so much feedback..]

It's interesting to see that we all seem to gyrate between the basic concepts of good and evil, which isn't astonishing at all, I think: In a war, you need a reason to shoot at the other guys.
So it boils down to the definition of morals, not moral itself: What humanity sees as morally undesirable in the Kilrathi behavior is defined as inherently "evil". I tend to agree with Delance that, given a different set of morals, the situation might look exactly the other way round: What we interpret in Kilrathi as overaggressive, warlike and cruel might just be their idea of being an expansive, success- and selection-oriented culture. [Sidetrack thought: was there ever an attempt to take the other POV, in game concepts, novels or even fanfiction; along the lines of TieFighter?]

But I still have a hard time figuring out an analogy. The nomadic tribes of the dark ages were also considered cruel, aggressive and evil, but in hindsight anthropologists write volumes about the richness of their culture, and the beneficial influence on the cultures they "visited", by spreading knowledge of craftsmanship and arts. But also by leaving death and destruction in their wake.

So are the Kilrathi just a darwinistic clash of cultures that ends like the Roman empire (Rome being burned while the legions were away), with no moral implication whatsoever, or is it more along the lines of showing which value system is best, in a kind of "mission to bring peace and democracy to the universe"?
 
To be fair...the Kilrathi had terraformed several entire planets with proton bombs...if that's not evil then I'm kinda afraid to know what you define as evil. Evil is relative I understand that, but that I define evil as certain set of guidelines, most Kilrathi meet those guidelines so thus they are evil. You may have a different set of parameters to determine "evil" but when we talk about evil in general its by taking to most common definition of evil (what the mainstream suggests) and applying that to whatever we desire. If the general definition of evil is such and such then we can say the Kilrathi Empire is evil as they committed mass genocide time and time again, we can say the Nazi regime is evil for the same reasons, we can say America is quasi evil because we dropped the Atom bomb (albeit only twice, the other mentioned factions were repeat offenders :) ). So, in short, I'm saying, your definition of evil may not be the same as mine and you can challenge my definition of evil but it's rather pointless because ultimately its the mainstream definition that will define what's evil, not your definition or mine. (unless our opinions happen to agree with the mainstream).
 
I still think it's not that easy, because even the mainstream does not have an absolute validity. For an example: It was generally accepted that Native Americans were evil, because they did not understand the concept of property, didn't believe in Jesus, had the wrong skin color - so they were systematically wiped out. Today, we see that the ethical concept that bolstered those acts was pointless.

So maybe I made the mistake in being too general with starting this thread. Somewhere up above, it was said that WC1-3 carry the same moral message than WW2; which I find hard to accept: The real war has a lot more to tell than just the messages in a game, up to the point where we're all up on stage, singing "WAR - what is it good for?".

The games, the WC Universe, are huge and complex, I admit, but they are still a ficitional creation with some underlying rationale as to where the story should go. And that's what I'm digging for.

I guess we can't decide if the Kilrathi, the Confed, or even Tolwyn as a single person is truly evil or good. I'm more interested in where it's going - and what the participants in this universe take out of it.
 
Delance said:
And we are back on the moral relativism. This can go one indefinitely. Some people don’t believe that good and evil exist at all, and that it all depends on subjective perception. So it’s not that the Kilrathi are truly evil, they are just misunderstood. However, Dund, just because you think "good" and "evil" don't exist, it doesn't actually mean they don't, and it certainly is not reason enough to impugn such comments.
Click to expand...
Eh, I think you're overreacting a bit. I agree about the contemptibility of moral relativism, but there is a fine line between excusing someone's actions because he goes by a different moral system (which is the moral relativism concept that you're talking about), and explaining someone's actions by acknowledging that, however morally reprehensible his actions are to us, they are not immoral to him because he goes by a different moral system (which, I believe, is what Dundradal is talking about).

In short, merely acknowledging that someone performing an evil act actually believes he's doing something good is not the same as using his beliefs to justify his act. And such an acknowledgement does not in any way imply the non-existence of the concepts of good and evil.
 
Fenris Ulven said:
you can be arrested for treason in wc3. i shot down Maniac. hehehe
Click to expand...

I used to shoot down the Tiger's Claw regularly when I was playing the SNES Wing Commander games and couldn't figure out how to land.
 
Delance said:
Genetic predisposition or not, the Kilrathi seem to be able to live peacefully, at least on WCIV. It seems more a cultural thing, or else they wouldn't have to have such a cultural apparatus created to enforce these aggressive tendencies. Perhaps the establishment was created to focus aggression towards outsiders as a way to maintain the status quo. Not that it’s bad or anything, it’s just their culture.
Click to expand...

Agreed - the Kilrathi have also made their own art, architecture, caste system and many other distinguishable things to a "society".
 
Some people don’’t believe that good and evil exist at all, and that it all depends on subjective perception.
Click to expand...

So if “something” is subjective, it’s not real? Really? Such self-loathing!

So, a cultural relativist approach would be somewhat like this:

Actually, the Confed military-industrial complex and imperialistic economy is to blame, since they practically provoked the Kilrathi into attacking them, staging the Iason incident hoax. And in a final act of agression, for purely economical reasons, Confed and the war criminal Blair nuked Kilrah, when it’’s well known that the Kilrathi were about to surrender. Not to mention to alleged atrocities that were fabrications of Confed Intel, and the wild notions that the peaceful Kilrathi are a warlike culture, which is just propaganda used to justify confed agression.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, because what relativists are really out to do is paint their own culture as the “evil” one. (That’s got to be one of the most evil misrepresentations I’ve seen for a while . . . and that’s even taking account of the elections.:).)

The games, the WC Universe, are huge and complex, I admit, but they are still a ficitional creation with some underlying rationale as to where the story should go. And that's what I'm digging for.
Click to expand...

The two best ethics-implicated games, in my view, are WC4 and Privateer. The former has a clear and deliberate moral as revealed in the various endings. The latter game is much “darker”, for as the player you are free–but also forced, if you want to pursue the main plot–to be “immoral” at points.

I guess we can't decide if the Kilrathi, the Confed, or even Tolwyn as a single person is truly evil or good. I'm more interested in where it's going - and what the participants in this universe take out of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I’ve never fully understood anyway the apparent importance to some of nailing down the question. There are so many more interesting and critical moral issues to consider.
 
Delance said:
So, a cultural relativist approach would be somewhat like this:

Actually, the Confed military-industrial complex and imperialistic economy is to blame, since they practically provoked the Kilrathi into attacking them, staging the Iason incident hoax. And in a final act of agression, for purely economical reasons, Confed and the war criminal Blair nuked Kilrah, when it’s well known that the Kilrathi were about to surrender. Not to mention to alleged atrocities that were fabrications of Confed Intel, and the wild notions that the peaceful Kilrathi are a warlike culture, which is just propaganda used to justify confed agression.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm no. If you read AS, the military-industrial complex is not doing so well. It's been almost if not 100 years since the last war. Confed is moving away from the need for a giant military force. Imperialism in terms of Confed is different from say, the US imperialism of today.

Most of your example argument does not actually work for cultural relativism, as most of the statements aren't using cultural to create the notions you present. You sound more like political relativism or something along those lines as cultural is not playing a role in the incidents you cite.
 
Nemesis said:
So if “something” is subjective, it’s not real? Really? Such self-loathing!
Click to expand...

The internet is the last place anyone should talk about "subjectivity"
 
Hmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder where the cultural relativism debate springs from - that sounds like some buzzword that hasn't reached backwaters European media yet...

The difference between good and evil is sometimes hard to grasp, obviously even for the player/reader/participant. What I like about it is that it's subtle - there's no easily spotted military propaganda news as in Starlancer, or staged discussion of reasons as I remember from Aquanox games. The characters - and we with them - are presented with moral quandaries, and if it's only about blasting our least favorite wingman. :)

Just a couple of days ago, I read in the WCU thread that in the Priv remake you will be able to damage merchants to drop their cargo - without killing them. That even helps you to get your standing with merchants not too low too fast. So - even if this is a fan-based/non-canon game - there is a firm concept of "thou shalt (better) not kill, or at least think twice about it".

I'm not sure if this holds true for the canon - you need to kill Hobbes, and you need to drop the bomb, but you also make decisions all the time to help or ignore people. Is it the scale? Personal relationship vs. The Greater Good, and not Darwinism after all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top