Mysterons - Good or Evil?

[shaqui]

Well Doc Denim kinda threw the gauntlet down about 'evil being a human concept' and not applying it to aliens?

Okay, dictionary definitions (so we have a common grounding to what it means) for 'evil' say:

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

For 1, we have to determine what morality the Mysterons have, and that's as big and nebulous as definitions of 'God'. But 2. is definitely in there - how can the Mysterons not be evil when they kill and destroy, even in a 'just' or 'moral' cause? And 5. is a possibility too. In the original series, the Mysterons ignored Colonel White's admission (in 'Dangerous Rendezvous') that the Zero X mission attack was wrong, and seeks to make amends. In the interests of future relationships and peace, how could the Mysterons not even reconsider their conflict with Earth?

What do other Shades think?

[Doc Denim]

Good morning!

ah, yes - this is a good old debate that has been running here off an on for a while.

firstly - as for definitions: the above are Human Definitions and I'm not sure that these can be applied to the Mysterons either.

secondly - which Mysterons are we talking about? Classic Mysterons or NCS Mysterons - this is like comparing apples and oranges - they bear precious little in common from what I've seen so far.

thirdly - how you answer this question depends entirely on what you think the Mysterons ARE.

But, for my opinion, and only as regards the classic Mysterons, I personally came to the conclusion that they were a machine intelligence (see Origins of the Mysterons thread) and that very much - from my viewpoint - takes them right out of the running for any definition of 'evil'. Here's a quick cut and paste (full discussion found under Retrometabolism, Can Scarlet Die of natural Causes?)

I very much tend to see the Mysterons as unwilling victims locked into the situation (as much as we the Earth-folk are) rather than as heinous and evil villains – as a machine intelligence, they’re not good, they’re not bad, they’re just programmed that way – and fortunately for us, done so by peaceful beings with a distaste for killing other beings off permanently

but I'm afraid that's all I have time for this morning.

I will add before I go however, that as far as NCS Mysterons go, this Juror is still out - I haven't seen nearly enough of them to reach any conclusions about what they might be or what it is driving them. They don't seem nearly as intelligent or as omnipotent as the classic lot by far.....

More later....

Doc Denim

[shaqui]

firstly - as for definitions: the above are Human Definitions and I'm not sure that these can be applied to the Mysterons either.

Why not? We're human, and using human frames of reference? Why can't they apply?

At its most basic definition, 'morality' is surely defined in any culture as a set of rules or behaviors which defferentiate between right and wrong. The original Mysterons stated they were 'peaceful beings', and seemed keen to make contact with other life - can their continuing vendetta be deemed 'moral'?

secondly - which Mysterons are we talking about? Classic Mysterons or NCS Mysterons - this is like comparing apples and oranges - they bear precious little in common from what I've seen so far.

Either - you can differentiate or compare if you wish.

thirdly - how you answer this question depends entirely on what you think the Mysterons ARE.

But, for my opinion, and only as regards the classic Mysterons, I personally came to the conclusion that they were a machine intelligence (see Origins of the Mysterons thread) and that very much - from my viewpoint - takes them right out of the running for any definition of 'evil'.

Again why? You don't want to apply 'the human concept of evil' to the alien Mysterons, but you seem willing to apply' the human concept of machine intelligence/physics/science' with the same broad stroke...

Yes, I'd agree there are some broad implications in the series to a machine-like intelligence - rigid and responding to a given threat. But I might say rigid thinking (or response) applies equally to biological life-forms (by indoctrination, or education, or even pure nature!) so while there's a good chance this is the case, it is by no means a given. (Note their own term 'beings' - individualistic and plural! Is this how 'machines' or 'computers' would refer to themselves?)

I will add before I go however, that as far as NCS Mysterons go, this Juror is still out - I haven't seen nearly enough of them to reach any conclusions about what they might be or what it is driving them. They don't seem nearly as intelligent or as omnipotent as the classic lot by far.....

Well admittedly the new Mysterons have, at times, been referred to by 'their own' as 'the Mysteron Consciousness'. To me, this implies a collective intelligence.

Exactly how 'less' intelligent or omnipotent do you think the new Mysterons are?

[Doc Denim]

Shaqui

Well, there’s a lot here to discuss, and this lunch-hour won’t suffice to cover it all, so I’ll confine myself to just one point for the moment, because this question (coming from a self-professed reader of New Scientist)(FYI, my own fave sci-rags are Discover and Scientific American) really quite surprised me:

You don't want to apply 'the human concept of evil' to the alien Mysterons, but you seem willing to apply' the human concept of machine intelligence/physics/science' with the same broad stroke...

Broadly speaking, Evil falls under Morality, and Morality falls into Philosophy. And comparatively (at least for me) Philosophy and Science are like apples and oranges again – and I really don’t think you CAN fairly compare the two because the Philosophy is almost purely subjective and changes with anyone’s point of view, and Science doesn’t – Science is objective and empirical and it works precisely because its principles are the same (as far as we can tell) everywhere in the entire known universe (naked singularities excepted, of course). I.E. – an electron is an electron no matter where you find it; gravity works the same on Mars as it does here.

So, no – I’m afraid I don’t consider this issue as anything like two concepts that might fall under the same broad stroke – the playing fields are not only not level, they’re not even in the same stadium….

Back to you on the rest ASAP….

Doc Denim

[shaqui]

Broadly speaking, Evil falls under Morality, and Morality falls into Philosophy. And comparatively (at least for me) Philosophy and Science are like apples and oranges again – and I really don’t think you CAN fairly compare the two because the Philosophy is almost purely subjective and changes with anyone’s point of view, and Science doesn’t – Science is objective and empirical and it works precisely because its principles are the same (as far as we can tell) everywhere in the entire known universe (naked singularities excepted, of course). I.E. – an electron is an electron no matter where you find it; gravity works the same on Mars as it does here.

So, no – I’m afraid I don’t consider this issue as anything like two concepts that might fall under the same broad stroke – the playing fields are not only not level, they’re not even in the same stadium….

Because humans choose to separate them.

Suppose moral application is the means to defining a technological use - you can, if you choose a biblical turn of phrase, make weapons or ploughs.

Suppose your technological capabilities are so advanced you are not just making tools but life itself - as the Mysterons appear to. Moral application crosses with technological (and therefore scientific) application, because these 'constructs' have a level of free will themselves.

Even if you choose to believe the Mysterons are a form of 'artificial intelligence' (and I'll define this as 'automatically programmes responses' as opposed to chosen or considered ones, based on a multitude of factors), then that must make them actually quite 'simple' - almost too simple for the level of 'omnipotence' you seem to imbue them with.

Back to you.

[Cerise]

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, Doc Denim, but were you saying that science is absolute, it's fact and that's it. Whereas, philosophy is subjective, a matter of opinion. It depends entirely on your point of view as to whether something is good or evil, right or wrong (laws aside). So science and philosophy cannot be compared side by side.

If that's right, I agree with you. I don't think it's that humans simply decide to separate them - one is fact one is opinion (regardless of whether that opinion is held by the majority). Naturally sometimes the two will overlap as sometimes opinion on a subject will appear to coincide with factual arguements but that is entirely coincidental and cannot be relied upon as the norm.

I think we have to remember that there are 2 sides to every arguement and each side will claim right and claim the moral high-ground. Good and right is entirely based on who you are and what your point of view is. After all we've all read historical accounts of wars were both sides were equally convinced that God was on their side. Nothing is ever as clear cut as we'd like - not even something that seems so fundamentally obvious - sometimes especially so.

[Doc Denim]

Hey Cerise;

were you saying that science is absolute, it's fact and that's it. Whereas, philosophy is subjective, a matter of opinion. It depends entirely on your point of view as to whether something is good or evil, right or wrong (laws aside). So science and philosophy cannot be compared side by side.

well, 'absolute' is rather a strong term, but yes, the fact vs. opinion pretty much catches the gist of it...

and it's just too late in the day to blather about it any further....next time!


Doc Denim....

[Clya Brown]

There's a chapter in "The Day of the Triffids" by John Wyndham which goes into this in some depth, and which constitutes - IMHO - a first-rate discussion of this issue. At this point in the story, almost everyone in the world has been struck blind by an alien display of lights in the sky that has encircled the Earth, and a few of those that have escaped have gathered together to discuss their predicament. One of the effects of the conference is to demonstrate to a small self-righteous contingent among the survivors that they need to rethink their concepts of right and wrong, to which end one of the speakers delivers an impromptu lecture, of which the following is an extract:

"Well indeed do the French say 'autres temps, autres moeurs'. We must all see, if we pause to think, that one kind of community's virtue may well be another kind of community's crime: that what is frowned upon here may be considered laudable elsewhere; that customs condemned in one century are condoned in another. And we must also see that in each community and each period there is a widespread belief in the moral righteousness of its own customs. Now, clearly, since many of these beliefs conflict they cannot all be 'right' in an absolute sense. The most judgment one can pass on them - if one has to pass judgments at all - is to say that they have at some period been 'right' for those communities that hold them. It may be that they still are, but it frequently is found that they are not, and that the communities that continue to follow them blindly without heed to the changed circumstances do so to their own disadvantage - perhaps to their ultimate destruction."

Okay, so "good" is that of which we approve; "bad" is that of which we disapprove, and "evil" is that of which we strongly disapprove. We can apply those interpretations to the Mysterons if we choose: on the basis of the above, the Mysterons are evil because we strongly disapprove of what they're doing*. But then, so what? The application of the "evil" tag does nothing more than provide us with the justification for engaging in a war with them (which we invariably do anyway whenever we wage a war). It would almost certainly not be possible to get the Mysterons to accept the wrongness of their own cause by any means other than destroying or reprogramming them, so there's not much point in trying to rub their noses in our moral judgment, as it were: as I see it, the only purpose of classifying them as either good or evil is to support our own response to the threat that they present to our species. In short, it makes us feel better.

[* I'm not forgetting the original cause of the war here, but I feel we can dismiss it as a justification for the Mysterons' response. Given that the Mysterons had the capability to reconstruct their civilisation with apparently minimal effort - even though we didn't know about that capability when Captain Black destroyed it - their response is disproportionate to the injury they suffered. By our standards of morality they are vicious, callous and vindictive.]

[shaqui]

[* I'm not forgetting the original cause of the war here, but I feel we can dismiss it as a justification for the Mysterons' response. Given that the Mysterons had the capability to reconstruct their civilisation with apparently minimal effort - even though we didn't know about that capability when Captain Black destroyed it - their response is disproportionate to the injury they suffered. By our standards of morality they are vicious, callous and vindictive.][/color]

I'm surprised, when faced with a perspective like this, that no-one has commented on the comparison and disproportionate 'retaliation' between 9/11 and the 'pecekeeping' in Iraq.

Not wanting to bring politics into this, but there are clear parallels - a single strike (yes, I'll make the distinction one was 'a mistake', the other cold calculating and murderous attack), but a continuing situation or 'war' because of that. Most other countries have condemned the USA's 'retaliation' as unreasonable (and yes, before anyone flames me for being politic, I condemn the UK's involvement in events) and beyond what was required - the 'occupation' of another country nd its resources which has gone beyond the original intent of 'finding and negating weapons of mass destruction'.

Perhaps not the original series so much, but the fact that the new Mysterons are divided in some way about their war as well, seems to echo some of this. I wonder if the production team have echoed some of the modern politics around us in suggesting the new Mysteron war, is as much a way led by a few 'leaders' (in the lack of a known social structure) on some righteous cause, as it is a parable for the 'rights and wrongs' of war as a whole?

[Doc Denim]

I was going to say: Why should the Mysterons (about whom we know next to nothing, really) be expected to have any regard for human life* when we ourselves so very blatantly do not. (i.e. – Baghdad these days….). But just going back to the ‘morals’ issue – again we simply don’t know what constitutes Mysteron Morality. We can choose to be anthropocentric about it if we like and maybe we’d be right – perhaps they subscribe to the “eye for an eye” school of justice – in which case it would be absolutely ‘right’ of them to want to wipe out our civilization, since what Black did was completely (if temporarily) wipe out what could possibly (and we don’t know that either) have been the whole of Mysteron civilization.

* And I will specify ‘human’ life, because we also have precious little regard for any and all other terrestrial life forms that we deem ‘lower’ than ourselves – I will freely admit that I often kill pesky insects without a second thought, and as a species, we cultivate ‘food’ animals on an industrial scale and dispatch them quite routinely without losing any sleep about it.

Doc Denim

[chrisbishop]

Please, keep the discussion within the boundaries of the series, old or new, without references to actual events, politics or religions. It would be far too easy to offend someone who might find these subjects a little too close to home.

This is a very interesting discussion, but please, be careful.

[Clya Brown]

I've just thrown "Define Morality" into Google and come up with the following from Wikipedia:

Morality in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is universally regarded as right or wrong. However, the term is often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. A "moral" may refer to a particular principle, usually as informal and general summary with respect to a moral principle, as it is applied in a given human situation.

So: we could well have had a problem with the definition in the very first sentence, given our comments earlier about the parochial nature of what constitutes right and wrong. However, as is noted, the term is often applied within a group of humans (note the word "humans"). We assume almost without thought that morality only applies to humans - but then of course, we've yet to encounter another sentient species who might be assumed to have a concept of morality.

So what kind of morality might the Mysterons have? The Mysterons may not have any regard for human life, but it's interesting to note that they clearly consider that we believe it to be important - because if they didn't believe that, then the nature of the war that they are waging would make no sense. For example, they announce that they intend to wipe out one specific city, and dare us to try to stop them. But then, if we didn't care about the fate of the humans inhabiting that city, why would we bother? That suggests to me that they at least comprehend the concept of morality as we understand the term - and that they understand the reaction that their attacks are intended to provoke, which is the reason I described them as vicious and vindictive earlier. I'm therefore wondering whether viciousness and vindictiveness are integral parts of their morality - and if so, we'd have to include deceitfulness in that list as well, given their original self-description as peaceful beings. Not a nice species to have as your next-door neighbours, when all's said and done.

[shaqui]

\D/ Please, keep the discussion within the boundaries of the series, old or new, without references to actual events, politics or religions. It would be far too easy to offend someone who might find these subjects a little too close to home.

This is a very interesting discussion, but please, be careful.

I'm not going to apologise for using a modern parallel everyone here can understand, more so than abstract theoreticals.

I had an interesting discussion with someone recently about the new series, and how startingly relevant it is for now - the early 21st century - and that it may, if enough people get to know it and watch it, be seen as touching on the issues of the time - as most Anderson series have done before them.

[Doc Denim]

Please, keep the discussion within the boundaries of the series, old or new, without references to actual events, politics or religions. It would be far too easy to offend someone who might find these subjects a little too close to home.

Aye, Colonel Sir! (I hope you had a wonderful extended leave overseas!) Welcome back!

As for the above request - consider it done...not because I'm the least bit disinterested in Current Events, but mostly because I come here to escape that sort of thing. I get Real Life everyday - and the CS Universe is my refuge of choice....

Looking forward to your debriefing....

Doc Denim

[shaqui]

As for the above request - consider it done...not because I'm the least bit disinterested in Current Events, but mostly because I come here to escape that sort of thing.

Same here, but the parallel struck me out of the blue while reading the thread, and I still think it was worth mentioning, if only as a model analogy...