And from that day on, the “Clone Wars” became an annual event… and peace spread throughout the galaxy once again.
Well, that’s how it would have happened. This week’s topic is something I think I touched on a little some time ago but deserves further review. That is, the ethics and morality of waging war. No no, this isn’t about some sort of political thing or if it’s right to fight at all, rather, how the forces are assembled is my concern with this report. Let us take for instance, oh, I dunno, the Clone Wars! A few years before a “long long time ago”, the Republic got sucked into a galactic war (yeah, again) with a group called the Separatists… a group that I just call Empire Jr. cause well, Sithy and all that. Anyways, neither side likes each other, both are run by idiots, yada yoda yada, I covered that one with my Picking Sides comic. What is problematic for me is how they choose to stock each side.
See, the Republic created a super army of soldier. No, not a typo, they were clones of one guy. So we’re talking millions (guessing) of clones of the same person here. These clones, albeit very good at what they do, are mass produced for war and combat. They are even aged at an accelerated rate; something like twice the normal speed or something. With this in mind, I can’t help but wonder if it’s really not just an army of brainwashed slaves. Crude logic yes, but think of it this way; if even the original was a willing participant and supporter of the Republic, does that give claim to subsequent copy as a proponents of the original? Meaning, do the copies have to follow whatever the first did? Do they even have the choice to become Empire Jr.? Grown and groomed for solitary purpose is beyond reprehensible. It removes all free will and gives it to the masters. Where are the clones that want to be musicians? Where are the clones that want to be dancers? Where are the clones that want to be accountants? Well, to be fair nobody wants to be that last one, but where is the choice?
I’ve caught a few episodes of the official cartoon (not bad btw… Druds, I’m lookin at you! Go watch it!) and there is an absolute commonality with the clones and that is a massive identity crisis! Right away I noticed that you have bouts of individuality springing up, with names, colors on the armor, hair styles, and even tattoos. And this fits in with general human nature; our quest for individuality and identity. Look at twins. They sure do look alike and many times have similar personalities, but they are completely different people. So back to clones, no matter what genetics, no matter what training, no matter what (I assume) downloading of memories, these people will develop identities and become individuals. It is nature… well, nurture. We are not the automatons enslaved by the functions of our DNA; we are the sum of all of our experiences. Those experiences shape and mold us, and they make us different. So no matter how many copies you make, not one will be the same.
That is why I do not agree with the Republic using clones. It is mind bogglingly immoral. Life is not replaceable. Life is not to be used as pawns, to send wave after wave of men into battle until the enemy runs out of bullets. That is not strength of leadership. It is beyond the drafting and conscription of civilians. Even that I have less of an issue with (but uh… still got an issue). It is more akin to the ancient Romans, plowing through civilizations and not merely burning them out of history, rather, absorbing and adapting them into their culture and, more importantly, their armies. Heck, it’s even worse than that! It is basically akin to the abuse of a (human) life and using it as mere fodder. The message from the politicians and leaders is this: you’re life is meaningless and you are replaceable. To me, that’s not really very Jedish… Just sayin… doesn’t sit well with me.
And what of the Separatists? I can understand rebellion from a political system you’re not really into. Sure you might not have many members to start, but that’s what rebellion is all about! So instead, they proceed to make an army of droids. While this might not get too many of you all teary eyed, I also take issue with this. If you look at the social interactions of the droids between themselves, others, and the environment, you can make a great leap of judgement to reason that these droids are without a doubt, alive. The distinction between flesh and steel isn’t that big of a deal when you consider the function of each. We, as people, are machines. No matter how you look at it, our bodies are perpetual entrapments of ongoing Rube Goldberg machines that run processes and routines on a chemical level rather than that of metal and oil. They are beautifully complex machines mind you, but they serve a function to which they perform. The mind, however, that’s another story. Really really complicated stuff up in that squishy blob! But when you get right down to it, it’s no different than a computer; collecting, processing, and reacting to information. We all have consciousness and individuality yes, and whether that’s a purely human thing or not is a question beyond the scope of this program, but for all intensive purposes, we are, again, the sum of all our experiences and with a similar computing power and ability to learn and adapt, one can only speculate that both conditions are just side effects from the software. (yikes, runon sentence… the english teachers are going to feel this one) Long story short, if computer smart as brain and can learn, it will have soul. There, argue that if you will, but the droids, at least in the Star Wars universe, show signs of consciousness and self awareness. Thus life, thus manufacture for war equals bad. (see rant above for why)
So yeah guys, both sides bad for using slave labor to fight their wars. I mean, couldn’t they get the same results by resolving their differences with Halo team matches? It’s almost like having your disagreements solved with Fantasy Football (huttball, sorry). There’s no reason to endanger other lives with this nonsense. And it’s not worth the moral bankruptcy of messing with lifeforms. I mean, what happens after the war? Droids get repurposed? Disposed of? Clones go into retirement? Granted, most of em get killed off, but still. It’s a big dilemma. So until either side starts ponying up their own lives for the fight, nobody has a moral high ground to stand on.
Heh, so how’s that for a rant from a comic essentially about mud wrestling! >)
btw…………. what does that even mean?
also i LOVE star wars the clone wars also if you seen the episode “the deserter” they do have free- thought!
also…… i thinking your NOT refering to star wars the clone wars or are you?
also HAVE YOU SEEN THE DEATHWING JAW HANGING IN ORGIMMAR!
what does what mean?
ha, well good! yes, I actually just saw that episode after I typed out all that text wall! kind of ironic when I think about it…
the interesting thing about that episode is that they just left the topic hanging! the one clone went awol and ran up a muck, but he did have a good point. obviously, this tv show is republic propaganda, because I don’t think everyone that disagrees with fighting becomes a double agent. still, I’m not really happy that the issue was just sort of laughed off with a “ok, get back to work, slaves” kind of thing. nobody even questioned if there was a problem or even opened a discussion, only hauled off the traitor and carried on as if nothing happened. either bad writing or the republic has got some crazy issues.
yes, the star wars clone wars… though I did take some liberties tossing in vader… well, kinda… he was sort of there at the end right?
nope, haven’t visited azeroth in a while I’m afraid. >(
I thought it looked more like a plate from his nose, DW’s jaw is VERY prominent (as we see while stabbing it in the final phase of madness) and the thing in the capitals looks nothing like it.
Well yes in reality no side is perfect…… The republic is defently “More” good but it has corruption within it’s highest ranks
also there was this other episode i forget what it was called but it does talk about the clones being slaves
Also there where these 3 episodes about the whole soilgerr side of the clones where they get the new general on the shadow planet
“(not bad btw… Druds, I’m lookin at you! Go watch it!)”
I genuinely laughed at that.
As for the clones, it’s a shame we don’t really know what the general opinion is, they may WANT to be there, we just don’t know. Aged super fast, they may not even be mentally aware enough to even think outside the box they were handed. It’s not like they could see the alternatives out there if they just suddenly exist then march off to war. Not that it makes it right, heck that kinda makes it more wrong. Still, I’d rather them be at least content with their fate than resent it since I don’t get to choose or help them in anyway.
The comment on robots gave me a semi-amusing thought, if in a more benign situation, would robots revere us humans as gods? We did literally create them. On the other hand, as computers they are logical and might not care how they came into being and simply move forward with this state of self-awareness they now have. Or maybe they will be very human and decide for themselves?
XD
I guess that’s true, so I could kinda see both sides, though without any further info, from an outsider looking in, the whole thing doesn’t seem very kosher.
hmm, good question! in many scifi/fantasy type settings they seem to be very reverent of their “makers”. makers, that is, holding either godlike or parental position.
I think the problem with that is it’s based on our assumptions of them; basically meaning, our imposed ideals. I think deep down we would want them to hold us to a higher standard. So there’s that… But on to your question… um, I think the answer is somewhere within how the intelligence is founded. meaning, higher intelligence isn’t the mere observation and processing of raw data, rather the ability to make complex relationships and judgements based on that data. something that is decades if not centuries in the future of software design. so that is a basic “sentient” pre-req, but I’d assume, being from human design, we’d impose many “human-like” characteristics, such as personality, morality, and curiosity. things like that we can connect with and empathize with. not on a level of say, between humans, but if you look at how we design robotics and AI stuff (in the RL and fantasy) they all start becoming more and more humanlike.
so with that, I would say they might have some sort of kinship attraction to humans; and unless it’s a time displacement issue (like say, both parties are separated for some time) where origins get lost somehow, I don’t see them ever worshiping humans. in fact, I would think they would (at some point in the AI evolution) consider themselves equal or (start up battlestar here) greater than their creators.
we in no way consider ourselves equals to apes… to us, they are animals. beautiful and intelligent animals, but they are “generally” not regarded to be on the same level. my fear is that when AI gets to the point of sentience, we will still carry over the superiority thing. if by some miraculous means we create artificial intelligent sentient life, then we can not let ourselves also create a master/slave mentality. I don’t think our aim in all of this is to create an AI to be a “smart machine to do our bidding” rather to genuinely create life to occompany us in this universe. to create brethren. race, species, color, creed, age, gender, or programming, these are all superfluous qualities. so yeah, my hopes are they when AI comes about, we aren’t seen as some alien god, rather a parent or brother.
And that, kids, is why I say love your driods now! cause maker knows I want to be on the winning side when the robot rebellion starts. XD
On the other hand, if all the clones and droids were exactly the same as the next one, with zero individuality, it would make for some pretty lousy mud wrestling matches. After you see the first one, you pretty much know how the rest of the matches are going to pan out. :)
lol! I wonder if there’d be any kind of randomness effecting the outcome or would it just have the same outcome…
quick! someone clone us up some roosters and dial up Michael Vick!
With the droids, the argument could be made that they originally had no individuality and that it was just a unexpected byproduct of making a computer able to learn and change internal protocols based off of observed situations. Therefore, the separatists are in some ways less evil than the republic!
At the same time (and assuming that I’m remembering correctly) the original reason for the clone army was actually do to not having big enough military to defend themselves against the droid army and they needed a force that they could replenish almost as fast as the droids could be built (not possible with conventional forces). This suggests that the clone army at the time was considered a necessary evil to perfect their society(something I’m sure we can all relate to). At one point the question here mutates from “is it right” to “what would you sacrifice to protect your loved ones and way of life?”
Right, I meant “protect their society” not “perfect their society”. Stupid smart phones. Live up to your name already
hmm, true! if something developed as a result of your action, can the original action be claimed as wrong? think I’ll try using that butterfly effect theory in court! but yeah, I guess where it would start being wrong would be if they continued to use droids against their will even after they started to develop personalities. probably a lot of gray area here, but I guess the major bit of this comes down to the continual use of a system that is proven to consistently turn out sentient droids.
the “what would you sacrifice to protect your love ones” is a very sticky question… almost don’t want to touch that, but here it goes. there’s a few sides to this, because yeah, if you are in a bad situation where your society is at the brink of war/collapse/etc then it would seem that anything you can do to protect yourselves and others would be ok. but look at a lot of those geneva conventions… lots of warcrime kinda stuff out there you can’t do. is it ok to use biological weapons of mass destruction to wipe out your enemies? a weapon capable of destroying entire cities, countries, continents? using weapons that are absolutely inhumane and cause pain or torture? these are actually a lot of the questions we face today when trying to decide the morality of use in military exercises.
I think there is a lot of wiggle room here and a whole lot of gray area too, but I think whatever it is comes down to “use the methods that are the least bad” and “avoid the choices that make you call into question extreme immoralities”. hmm… should make a fortune cookie of that… anyways, great topic there! maybe I’ll revisit that for a full comic discussion sometime!
but let me leave you with this, a quote from Red vs Blue - “It is an undeniable and may I say, fundamental, quality of man, that when faced with extinction, any and all alternatives are preferable” I rather like that one… I think you can be moral to a point, but when backed into the ultimate corner of annihilation, no claw should remain sheathed.
I had a serious thought about this. Especially with the Recent ( abysmal ) ME 3 Ending and the logic of the ”Reapers” (spoiler = ) about how sythetics will always try to kill organics if left unchecked…..which is BS in my opinion as we saw in Geth and how you can make them sentient and be peaceful and Helpful to you.
Other than that, there is the occasional ‘Terminator’ scenario which shaped in people’s minds.
I also watched a great and emotionally moving movie about humans and their use of clones as an Organ factory…. It was an ethical and Moral lesson to see it from the Clones’ perspective. In the end , it didn’t justify the means really. I forgot the name, maybe you guys know it.
Personally, that showed me that we humans are not ready to ”create” life. We are not responsible enough or have too much ambitious/ desire to rule others , especially the things we created. We tend to exploit anything we can find, that would include Clones and Droids.
Lets be honest…those who do not respect others in life TODAY ….I shudder to think what would they do to Clones and Droids ( sentient ones )
As for the poll…well I say IF at some point we create them and we are able to handle the responsibility , I would say leave the choice to them since they are just like us humans , having a free will means to make your own choices and let them decide whether they want to repay us for bringing them to life or they want to explore the life that is created for them.
Sadly , I can’t think of this issue positively when I look at the current state of the world.
I’m with you on this. as long as we, as humans, don’t start treating artificial (you know, you’re right, synthetic vs organic is much better way of phrasing this) life forms differently… which would lead to some serious bittering and resentment… I think we’d all get along pretty well. it would be interesting watching a new life develop and grow and we’d probably be studying eachother for a very long time. and at least it would get those philosopher folks something to do.
of course, it is not to say that there won’t be a few that will totally wig out and go on some killing sprees. we already have people that do that… it happens. but you can’t hold the actions of a few to be the opinion of the many.
ha, yeah… me neither with the “looking at the issue given the state of the world”… some of us welcome the chance to meet and greet new and exotic life forms….. buuuuut probably there’s a lot of us that would just want to destroy it. hell, if I was an alien, I’d stay the heck away from earth! nothing good can come from a backwater little planet like ours. >\
Of course both sides are doing morally reprehensible things.
The Republic in the first 3 movies is in transition from the utopia of the old republic into the evil empire.
The separatists are the villains of the prequels so they won’t be acting like good guys either.
The only good guys in the prequel movies are the Jedi, but they aren’t in charge. They try to do the right thing, but are blinded to the fact that the people they work for are evil. Obi Wan was surprised by the clone army because the Jedi wouldn’t have ordered one for the reasons your rant mentions. They didn’t have much choice about using it though because it was either use it or get overwhelmed by the separatists.
Darths and Droids did a good parody of the sentience of droids in Star Wars recently pointing out that in the scene at the beginning of A New Hope a smart Imperial soldier would have shot down or tractor beamed in the pod containing R2D2 and C3PO. No life signs on the scanner does not mean no life; just no ORGANIC life.
It never was utopia… well maybe few planets in the Core were, but Rim was wild, without control… There was Hutt cartel in which Republic had no jurisdiction, Wild space lot of completly nonalligned worlds.
(Btw Hutt cartel was in existence fat before the Republic or anyone of Sith empires)
Most planets had negligable populace… Coruscant, and Corelia are exceptions.
And A Jedi master did order the clone army to be created. Palpatine and Dooku found after the fact, not before. Though Dooku´s funds were eventualy used to purchase fleet at Kuat to give clone armies mobility. Because somehow he foresaw need for it in the Force.
The films depicts slightly different- Republic, which barely survived new Sith wars, has between 7th Battle of Ruusan and rise of Palpatine enjoyed 1000 years of unchallanged expansion, with what few “wars” there were were choked down by Jedi and planetary militias. (Corelia f.e. maintained lather large forces, which however were not present in Clone wars because senator Garm Bel Ibliz invoked something written in their induction threaty and Corelia became “neutral”)
Republic became too decadent, it´s byrocracy became to large to effectively work, each decision pissed of too many people… very much like Ancient Rome, which in the end became too large to govern. Downfall of Old Republic was inevitable, Separatism would eventualy rise up even without Sith, maybe later, but with same reasons-
Republic would need more and more tax money to run itself. And well, many planets got idea that it would be cheaper if they governed themselves than pay Republic for dooing it.
Republic wanted to tax traderoutes and use this money to pay for maintanance and protection on them… but it already did that with some other tax money which it wanted to alocate elsewhere. Trade federation would have to pay old tax and new tax… and they came to conclusion that if they defended their ships themselves without republic, it would actualy be cheaper. So they wanted… OUT.
Not unlike American revolution against british… the real spark which ignitedi it were too high taxes. And conclusion that taxpayer (one who actualy PAYS) does not get adequate services for it.
As for life, well droids weren´t recognized as life even in Galactic Federation of Free Alliances, a succesor state to New Republic (which was destroyed when Yuuzhan Vong seized Coruscant- (and YV considered any form of nonbiotic technology abomination and afront to Gods that must be destroyed)
There were however few wars of droids against Republic forces, (against G0T0) organics always won. (Sad contrast to absolutely messed ending of ME 3)
man, I’m just waiting for a pro-empire movie! comeon, we aren’t all that bad! my sith inquisitor is a light side! >D we just want to DOMINATE THE UNIVERSE WITH PEACE AND LOVE!!!! XD
wow PK! excellent history write up! I really need to brush up on some lores! the SW universe has some amazing backstory! I wish they would make some more movies that take place back in these times. >\
i take issue with the rome burning cultures out of existence bit. for the most part after romans defeated a people they did take over their land and bring in their own administrators, but so far as culture went all rome asked was that they pay taxes and obey their rule…and there may have been something about not disrespecting their gods but it wasnt forced worship and for the most part it wasnt til christianity came along that there were any real issues there. being absorbed into the army was technically optional as it was a path to roman citizenship.
ah, yes while that is true, if you follow the arts (like I studied) you can see how they conquered and absorbed/adapted cultures. guess it’s a very similar thing to christianity too… probably why the two didn’t get along very well…
I wouldn’t say it was an absorption on a religious level, but rather an ideal or societal one. I don’t think I can conjure up any good examples of this I’m afraid since it’s been a while… but yeah, that was kind of a double negative thing about “burning them out of existence”, I meant they didn’t do that, they brought them in instead.
While I agree with your arguments as they were presented in the overarching sense, there is a flaw in the droid side of your argument that has yet to be addressed: that the battle droids would qualify as “alive.”
Now, before I begin, I’m going to sidestep slightly. I utterly disagree with the idea of any mechanical object being classifiable as living. Life is a purely organic phenomenon.
That being said, life is not the quality that makes for the moral and ethical problems regarding beings, organic or otherwise. Destroying bacteria does not pose any moral or ethical issues, and yet they are undeniably alive. Eating a carrot does not make one a murderer, despite it resulting in the death and destruction of a living thing. What sets humans apart, and thus in theory anything else capable of the same, is self awareness and rational thought: i.e. sentience. If a digital or mechanical construct were to gain sentience, then they SHOULD, by default, become entitled to the same civil rights, privileges, and responsibilities as we deem ourselves worthy of. Johnny 5 was not alive, but it was a cognizant, thinking being.
That having been quantified, clearly, not all robots (read ANY, at least on Earth currently) would necessarily be sentient. In the SW-verse, it seems fairly apparent that some droids were, indeed, sentient; R2-D2, C-3PO, and HK-47 being prime examples. My issues are with putting the battle droids from the Clone War on that level.
Case in point, the standard B1 battle droid. These droids were of such limited capacity, that for them to employ any real tactical combat effectiveness, they had to be slaved to a central control computer. While marginally functional without centralized control, they were essentially capable of little more than the most basic ‘Zerg style attacks. The B1′s displayed little or no self awareness, survival instinct, or adaptability in the face of unexpected situations. Although undeniably more sophisticated than anything humans have currently achieved, I do not believe they can be called sentient by any legitimate stretch of the imagination.
As for the droidekas, though decidedly effective weapons systems, they were by no means even remotely intelligent. Personally, I figure they would be roughly on par with sharks: instead of…
Start
Swim
Is it moving? - Yes/No
- If No, Go to Start
- If Yes, EAT IT!
Go to Start
…you would have something like…
Start
Patrol
Is it moving? - Yes/No
- If No, Go to Start
- If Yes, does it pass IFF?
- - If Yes, Go to Start
- - If No, SHOOT IT!
Go to Is it Moving?
…Again: effective, but not sentient.
So if the battle droids were not sentient beings, there is no ethical issue of slavery: they’re just reeeeeally fancy unmanned weapons.
And no offense intended, but the idea that using clones or droids (or whatever), regardless of any moral and ethical issues arising from their exploitation, somehow makes it any less of a “real” war is ridiculous. War has nothing whatsoever to do with who or what gets sent into combat: men, women, snailfolk from Ganymede, that Roomba plotting in the corner… It’s irrelevant. Nor does it matter what you fight with. Bullet, blade, or bludgeon, dead is still dead. The tools change, but the strategies, tactics (at their core), and more importantly, the REASONS haven’t changed since the dawn of mankind. One group decides they want something another group has and makes the choice to take it by force, for good or ill. If another country decided to invade the U.S., I’m not going to care if they’re using unmanned tanks and planes: if my house gets blown up, what difference does it make whether it was a soldier with a RPG or an RC car on steroids? It’s still brick dust and splinters left behind. And if by chance the invaders DO agree to resolve the war with a few rounds of Halo, am I supposed to just accept it and surrender if the U.S. player(s) gets beaten by the cheating rocket-whoring bastard(s) on the other side? I know some would, of course, but by and large I’m reasonably certain that pig ain’t gonna fly. Any more than the invaders would be willing to leave if they chumped by our dirty rotten spawn camper(s).
Basically, at the point it goes to war, “moral high ground” has left the building. ”Morally justifiable necessities” are the best you can hope for. You take the best tools you have at your disposal, and you end the conflict as fast as you can with the fewest loses to your side you can manage.
I’m probably not going to try to argue the whole “life vs not life” thing cause that’s a really hard one to pin down.
But with regards to the tools of warfare, that’s a real hard one. you would “think” that all is fair in love and war (though girls still don’t like it when you shoot them with ICBMs), but it seems like this isn’t the case. I guess, for me, the big thing is choice. whether or not you choose to join the battle or to be neutral. but on the other hand, I like the whole Aristotle thing where “if you are a citizen, then it’s your duty to protect your country”. And also with good ol Aristotle, a man of thought and reason, of ethics and morality, and more importantly, a vicious vicious warrior. the man could tear people apart and bath in their blood. So… what’s that say? in times of peace it’s all about morality and that of war anything goes?
I guess the question should be more broad in that; “should there even be such a thing as morality or ethics in times of war”? are the tactics of Vlad the Impaler, who put 10,000 heads of his enemies on pikes to ward off an approaching army… are these tactics wrong? they’re effective and gruesome, but are they wrong?
personally… I think I’m a bit on the fence with all of it. I see lots of good points on either side. it’s a hard one.
I’ve always hated that old “all’s fair..” saw. In war, determining what the moral/ethical path is does become an exceedingly difficult thing to do considering the impact and scope one’s choices can have, but personally, I absolutely believe that morality and ethics apply to war, just as they do in all other aspects of life where one’s choice(s) can or will affect another being. However hard and ugly those choices are, there is still choice: hence my “morally justifiable necessities” previously.
I’m going to bypass Vlad Tepes : the accounts regarding his life and actions are conflicting and rather thin. A more contemporary reference, and easily more controversial, would be the use of nuclear weapons on Japan during World War II.
Even when viewed under the magnifying glass of hindsight, in my opinion, it was the the lesser evil. Compared to even the more conservative early estimates for a land invasion of the Japanese homeland (500,000 dead, 2,000,000+ wounded for the U.S., 3,000,000+ dead and countless wounded for the Japanese), the cost in lives alone lends significant credence to Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki (approx 230,00 to 320,000 dead between immediate and long-term effects of the bombs) as a means of bringing a swift close to the war.
By contrast, the government sanctioned and supported use of smallpox against Native American tribes by the U.S. is one of the most morally bankrupt and repellent chapters in our history. During the the U.S.’s expansion westward, there was deliberate use of smallpox contaminated blankets and clothing as trade items for the express purpose of decimating local tribes. While in some cases these were privately funded atrocities, at times the U.S. Government sanctioned these practices, sometimes even supplying the contaminated materials. This was done because it was a cheap, expedient means of removing the tribes to facilitate the acquisition of their lands. There is no way to create an ethical justification for this practice other than to fabricate it from whole cloth.
I would definitely have to agree the RvB quote from Leonard Church regarding extinction. In extreme circumstances, extreme means may become necessary for survival, and unlike Immanuel Kant, I believe circumstance must play a role in determining the moral/ethical position of any situation. Including war.