That article was annoying. It was basically a giant strawman argument. It goes on and on about how intentions are not the ultimate arbiter of morality, but fails to mention what is, and then ends on a note saying "oh, by the way, what I really meant is that intentions form a large part of morality, just not all of it". Which is pretty much exactly what Card's writing suggests — people hold Ender responsible for the xenocide even though he didn't intend it. Ender holds himself responsible for the xenocide even though he didn't intend it. The author doesn't actually seem to disagree with Card, despite writing an article about how wrong Card is.
edited 27th May '12 6:22:27 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
You're not familiar with the standard deeds/intentions dispute over good works, then? The article's complaint is that Card massively weights the scale towards intent, to the point where we're often supposed to muster more sympathy for the guy who obliterated a species than for his victims. It's kind of like the old fandom concept of manpain
.
As Ender was the main character, isn't that the point or something? Eh, it's a Bug War where the bugs attacked first. I don't consider Ender to have acted in a way that was morally wrong at any particular points. Then again, I don't consider self defense to have scalar limits.
Fight smart, not fair.As Ender was the main character, isn't that the point or something? Eh, it's a Bug War where the bugs attacked first. I don't consider Ender to have acted in a way that was morally wrong at any particular points. Then again, I don't consider self defense to have scalar limits.
Are you familiar with the concept of a What the Hell, Hero? moment, or a Villain Protagonist? It is quite possible for the protagonist of a story to commit terrible actions that we aren't supposed to sympathise with. The problem with Card is that there is little, if any room in his writing for people to be wrong or mistaken - good intentions result in good, and evil intentions result in evil. There is no place for the Knight Templar or Well-Intentioned Extremist there. In the real world, meanwhile, a good number of history's worst mass-murderers earnestly thought they were doing the right thing.
What's precedent ever done for us?It's even worse than that, actually. Despite their murdering, they actually did do some good. Medical technology would be stunted compared to what it is now without the horrific experiments done by the dictators of the 20th century. A lot of the technology we have now would be back in its infancy, if it even existed, without a great war to spur it on. Heck, this very internet was formed to keep the military connected while it fought enemies. Germany was still in a Depression until the Nazis temporarily turned things around for the war effort (too many people, not enough jobs, suddenly mobilization breaks out and more people can find jobs again). Life's not black and white, it's a sliding scale of grays.
Funnily enough, that point comes up in the later Ender books, since the ansible used by the military to coordinate their attack fleets becomes the primary method of communication among the various colony worlds. It's not like Card is ignorant of history, after all.
Either way, I've kind of grown tired of the Ender controversy...or at least this controversy. I'd be more concerned about all the people who identify themselves as the Enders of the world, the intelligent outsiders. That is a bit more problematic.
Either way, I prefer the early Alvin Maker books anyway, they're better written. A shame he took too long between them and the later ones; continuity issues abound.
edited 28th May '12 1:33:23 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.One has to wonder what percentage of the population even votes on the matter, and what percentage thinks it's a foregone conclusion and are actually shocked at the real outcome in the end. Then one has to wonder what percentage of those who voted the way OSC thinks actually use internet forums at all. People posting on forums are probably another minority in the population, to be honest.
I don't think this is actually a popular opinion anymore at all, it's just that the very vocal minorities really do vote more consistently than the rest of us, because they're afraid of being pushed aside. Course, all us voting would do is speed up what's already happening. Those minorities will fade out as badly the Nazis did. (They might do rallies but they have very little real political power.)
There are probably also Tropers who'd agree with some of Card's beliefs, but not all of them. Some might agree with several of his conclusions, but have more serious arguments than Card marshals, and lack his nasty, hostile edge.
For my part, I'm against legalizing soi-disant "gay marriage," and believe that institutions like the Catholic Church have non-trivial, reasonably persuasive (though not irrefutable) arguments against the morality of homosexuality. Nonetheless, if vice it be, it's not one that I really lose any sleep over, or feel moved to go on rants or crusades against. So I'm not sure that qualifies me as "agreeing" with Card in any meaningful sense.
edited 28th May '12 6:51:28 PM by Jhimmibhob
I've heard/read on several occasions that support for gay marriage is more common among the younger generations, and that as more and more teens reach voting age (and more and more of the older generations who oppose gay marriage die), majority opinion among voters is beginning to shift.
I think the big argument for gay marriage is reducing religion to a personal choice. Right now it really doesn't matter what religion you are, Christianity pretty much has a firm pulse on the nation's government. Giving the same exact rights to same sex couples as to opposite sex ones reduces the influence of an organization that has no right to legislate the morals of the populace. If you want to follow them, that's entirely up to you, but our government, being secular, and not really allowed to be beholden to a religious institution, should not be following the dictates of one when it comes to governing the country's social scene.
Most of the practical problems with homosexuality have been mitigated by science. Children can still be born to them without someone having to bite the bullet and have sex with someone who repulses them. It might be more expensive in some cases, but that in itself just boosts parts of the economy. If folks like Card would stop ranting against the matter, there'd be fewer safety issues as well.
Add to that the fact that sterile heterosexual couples and heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are still allowed to marry without their relationships being questioned/outlawed.
I don't think turning this thread into one about gay marriage is a good idea... if you want to discuss that we have like 4 threads in OTC.
Back to the original topic... If I were only allowed to read books by people who agreed with me, my reading pool would be very small indeed. Most authors are going to disagree with you on something in the political/religious/bigotry spectrum.
Be not afraid...I'm familiar with the concept of moral greys in a story, I just didn't feel that the Ender series had them in the first few books. The later ones did, particularly the debates later on.
Fight smart, not fair.The only times an author's political stances would stop me from reading would be if the author goes in for long political tracts within his/her works, which would slow down and kill the flow of the story, or if I found out that part of the money I'm giving to that author by buying the book was going to some group actually trying to make the person's sick dreams come true. The proceeds from John Ringo's Paladin of Shadows series (Which is nothing more than wank fic) actually go to helping out women who were/are victims of the sex trade (This one's good). If I found out another author I read was donating his/her money to helping out third world dictators, or to the campaign finances of a politician who would wreck his/her home country for profit, I'd boycott in a heartbeat.
In regards to Paladin of Shadows, it's not book sales going to the Helen Bamber Foundation
, but sales of a shirt bearing an illustration (well, sorta) of one scene with the caption "OH JOHN RINGO NO!
". (The Cafe Press store for the shirt was closed at the end of 2009 due to interest tapering off, after raising 700-odd bucks for the Foundation.)

The article on Enders Game was interesting. I disagree with some of the points (Ender wiping out the species being wrong in this case), but still an interesting look at what makes it popular.
Fight smart, not fair.