Aliens and genocide

[Waiting for the Verdict]

I think we all agree that the genocide of any one race would be morally abhorrent. But what about the genocide of another species? THe reason i bring this up is because certain science fiction authors, particularly Orson Scott Card and Robert Heinlein (in Ender's Game and Starship Troopers) have posited the existence of species who are inherently, irrevocably hostile towards us. In such a situation, where peace is impossible, would genocide be permissible or would it still be immoral?

I'd vote for the latter.

 

[IzzyPop]

Interesting question. If we ever do run into intelligent life I'd say that the frames of reference would be too far apart to allow for much in the way of effective communication. So war would most likely follow.

I would agree that it would be immoral, but that would not stop me from attempting to wipe every last one of them out. Morality questions go out the window once someone/something is trying to kill me. Much as in real life. I do not condone fighting someone, but if I do get in a fight, I fight dirty. Pain sucks.

On a side note...interesting that both authors chose bugs for the basis of these alien races, eh?

 

[Paulos23]

Stop making great posts Izzy, I only have some much rep to go around.

I have to agree with you, questions of morality go out the window when an entity (human or alien) tries to kill you. That survival instinct is there for a reason, use it and fight back. And if the entity is unable to communicate with you on any level other then violence, then you have no choice. Wipe them out.

 

[chaz345]

I have to agree with you, questions of morality go out the window when an entity (human or alien) tries to kill you.

So does that mean that morality should go out the window when dealing with extremist Islamists whose stated goal is the elimination of everyone who believes differently than them?

Or what about Amendinijad? Does his publically stated goal of the elimination of Israel, if followed by action, excuse the Israelis from morality in their policy toward Iran? What about Israel's allies such as the US?

 

[Caylin]

So does that mean that morality should go out the window when dealing with extremist Islamists whose stated goal is the elimination of everyone who believes differently than them?

For the extremists sure. The same as for the extremist christians who believe the same thing.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but the term is "muslim."

 

[Blackguard_]

If an entire race/species is a threat to you, it's ethical to kill the entire race/species. Self-defense and Just War thoery doesn't go out the window just because the guy trying to kill you is the last of something.

Where do people get the idea genocide is inherenlty an evil act?

It would be A-OK to kill a million invading space aliens, but only if there are more than a million members of that species, if there's only a million it becomes wickedness?

 

[rebelEnigma]

For the extremists sure. The same as for the extremist christians who believe the same thing.

Because us Christians are SOO blood-thirsty, violent, and outright hellbent on the annihilation of all those that don't believe exactly like us. Which is why we're on TV wearing ski-masks, holding AKs and threatening to blow up those that do not agree with us. Oooh wait, that's Islam. Sorry, my bad.

I think we all agree that the genocide of any one race would be morally abhorrent. But what about the genocide of another species? THe reason i bring this up is because certain science fiction authors, particularly Orson Scott Card and Robert Heinlein (in Ender's Game and Starship Troopers) have posited the existence of species who are inherently, irrevocably hostile towards us. In such a situation, where peace is impossible, would genocide be permissible or would it still be immoral?

Why would it be morally abhorrent? If an entire alien species invaded this planet and we had the means to kill every last one of them, we should do it. And since an alien invasion would be completely unprovoked, it would be justified even further.

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

I guess i have to stick to all the pithy platitudes about if we fight like the enemy, we become the enemy. But I agree that's not much comfort when you're being blown back in the stone age.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I think we all agree that the genocide of any one race would be morally abhorrent. But what about the genocide of another species? THe reason i bring this up is because certain science fiction authors, particularly Orson Scott Card and Robert Heinlein (in Ender's Game and Starship Troopers) have posited the existence of species who are inherently, irrevocably hostile towards us. In such a situation, where peace is impossible, would genocide be permissible or would it still be immoral?

I'd vote for the latter.

Just an aside from a nerd - the alien species in Ender's Game wasn't inherently, irrevocably hostile towards us. That was one of the main pionts of the novel. In fact, the novel ends with Ender finding the last survivor of the race and pledging to find it a place where it can thrive and re-establish the race.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Murder is Murder, regardless of it's justification. Even if you kill in Self-defense, you are still causing the death of another and is Murder.

Killing itself is not inherently Immoral. It's your reasons for killing in which that the question of Morality is raised.

Genocide is just one form of Murder, though obviously far more Damaging in far less time then simple Murder, but their reasons are not always so different.

But, is it murder for an Enemy to cause it's own death in it's attempt to kill you? Self-defence I would not concider to be Immoral or Evil But I do not make that determination lightly when it comes to any form of Pre-emtive Defence. Just because a threat is percieved, does not make that Eliminating that threat Just.

Genocide is never Just unless that Species is an Unending Threat and only if the Situation can not be Ended in a more positive way.

In otherwords, genocide can never and will never be concidered Just nor Moral. The Threat will just never be that great, regardless of the Paranoid fanasys of Sci-Fi Authors. This is one lessen that Ray Bradberry, the greatest Author of Paranoia I've ever read, tought me.

 

[IzzyPop]

Because us Christians are SOO blood-thirsty, violent, and outright hellbent on the annihilation of all those that don't believe exactly like us. Which is why we're on TV wearing ski-masks, holding AKs and threatening to blow up those that do not agree with us. Oooh wait, that's Islam. Sorry, my bad..

Yeah. A Christian would never blow-up an abortion clinic or the Olympics, shoot an OB-GYN, invade a country because God told him to (multiple time through out the peace loving, non-confrontational history of Christianity), burn anyone at the stake, or torture people just because they didn't believe exactly like the Christians that were holding the thumbscrews. Which is why they never show up on TV outside of dead soldier's funerals protesting what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. You never see anything like a Christian advocating the assassination of another Christian world leader.

Yeah. That Christianity...all sweetness and light.

Any dogmatic and irrational world view is harmful if taken to an extreme. But there is one major difference between the aliens mentioned in the OP and extremists of any stripe. We have a common frame of reference with the extremists. They are human beings. We can and should talk to them to see if some peaceful resolution can be found. This may well not be possible with aliens.

 

[chaz345]

Also, I hate to break it to you, but the term is "muslim."

Actually I hear the term Islamists quite often, used as a means of clarifying that it is the extremists and not the typical Muslim that is being talked about.

 

[chaz345]

Any dogmatic and irrational world view is harmful if taken to an extreme.

Certain forms of atheism included, right?

 

[IzzyPop]

Certain forms of atheism included, right?

Abso-freaking-lutely. The whole fallacious argument of 'Christians may have whacked a few people long ago in the past, but Mao and Stalin offed more people more recently, and they were atheists!' proves that point. Mao and Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism, they killed in the name of a dogmatic ideology...and they picked on religion so much because it was a competing ideology.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Certain forms of atheism included, right?

What 'forms of atheism' are there?

 

[chaz345]

What 'forms of atheism' are there?

Bad terminology on my part.
Extremist atheism may have been a better choice of words. The type that seeks to actively oppose and ridicule those that do believe. The type were atheism crosses over from being a simple lack of belief into being a belief system in it's own right.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Many philosophers, sci-fi authors and scientists are of the opinion that any inteligent life "out there" may be so utterly alien to us that there is absolutely no possibility of common ground being found... very few serious contributors think the Star Trek universe where the only difference bwtween sentient races is a variety of forehead appliques is likely...

So, while, as humans, we will obviously have a real tendency to bring our inherent, Earth->primate->industrialised human morality and ethics to bear in our encounters with any new race we enciounter, there is no guarantee at all that we will find anything similar coming in the opposite direction...

Imagine human interaction with any species here on Earth to see the problems presented... arthropods are an excelent model to consider as a range of developed species with very little in the way of common ground to relate to, were they inteligent... but we need not even stray outside our own phylum to stretch the philosophical muscles...

consider the mind of a crocodile, shark, or big cat... any primary predator will do... they are utterly without mercy, pity or empathy for their prey... they take only what they need to survive, yet no amount of reason, pleading or bargaining will save you from a tiger who has you picked out as dinner.

Sad to say, any contact with an alien race we may encounter may have similar difficulties.

The aliens may not have a concept for "diplomacy", or even "co-existence".

Michio Kaku pits forward the REALLY disturbing notion that other alien races may be so far in advance of us they don't recognise us as sentient... and feel the same regard to our civilisation as we feel towards an ant colony... and you will note that in human-ant colony relations... it is extremely rare for the ant colony to come out of the interaction better off.

So... in answer to the OP... it is eminently possible that relations with alien inteligence may precipitate an us or them genocidal struggle... and personally, I believe that self defence is the right of EVERY organism... so if the genoci9de were warranted as the only possible way to survive the contact, well, so be it, we have a right to defend ourselves appropriately.

That does not mean that we don't also have a duty to respect our opposition, even mourn them, once we are triumphant. But No, lying down and accepting extermination is not preferable to extinction, even if the flip side is the extinction of another race.

Really interesting question.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

interesting concept, taking a croc, panther or shark and raise it to human (or higher) intelligence and see how it deals with humans. i'm curious though if the animal would also become self-aware as it became sentient? if so would the animal's self-awareness give it the ability to overcome instinct and therefore able to interact where before it would simply act?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

interesting concept, taking a croc, panther or shark and raise it to human (or higher) intelligence and see how it deals with humans. i'm curious though if the animal would also become self-aware as it became sentient? if so would the animal's self-awareness give it the ability to overcome instinct and therefore able to interact where before it would simply act?

Interesting questions... of course, they rather require one to come up with a clearer definition of self awareness and sentience first...

Personally I would say that most mammals are certainly self aware...

but thats all slightly tangential... rather, my point is that if the species we are discussing has a tiotally seperate and different mental framework to our own, co existence may not be a viable concept...

lets take your eloquent prasing "elevate a panther to human (or higher) inteligence"... presumeably it is now capable of dealing with instinctive drives and overcoming base urges same as humans (theoretically) are... the deeper question is, would it WANT to? Would it see any reason to deal with the funny pink bipeds on their terms, rather than it's own?

Human ethics and morality are very firmly rooted in our evolutionary history as savanah dwelling social scavengers and foragers... presumeably the ethics and morality of an animal that decends from a solitary jungle predator would be wildly different to our own...

in terms of sci fi authors with similar thoughts, Larry Niven's Kzinti are a good example, as are the Tzen of Robert Asprin's "Bug Wars"

 

[chaz345]

interesting concept, taking a croc, panther or shark and raise it to human (or higher) intelligence and see how it deals with humans. i'm curious though if the animal would also become self-aware as it became sentient? if so would the animal's self-awareness give it the ability to overcome instinct and therefore able to interact where before it would simply act?

It is the ability to act counter to our instincts that makes us human in the first place. It is also what allows us to develop technology so it is likley that any space faring species that we encounter would have the same ability. IOW I find it doubtful that a spicies that is ruled by it's instinct to kill/destroy/eat any spicies that is not itself would be capable of developing the necessary technology to start wandering around in space.