[Scotty]

It's not. It's described as being a horrendous, drawn-out, tortuous death in the story. Even if it isn't rigorously experimentally proven to be such, for the sake of the story and scenario I think we can assume it as bad as the author says.

But that's the point.  There is NOTHING in the story other than that xenobiologist's (who has been a xenobiologist for less than 24 hours at this point) speculation to lend credence to this idea.  The author never conclusively confirms or denies that there is any pain being felt at all.

[Black Wolf]

But the divide is also arbitrary. The experience of a human baby being eaten by Babyeaters and a Babyeater baby being eaten by Babyeaters is identical. It's inconsistent to treat them differently.

Of course it's inconsistent. Consistency only means anything if the situations you're acting in/reacting to are basically similar. Applying the same standards to Babyeaters and humans, despite the supposed similarities isn't "consistent" - it's uniformity and massive oversimplification.

The babyeater's children suffer, yes, but it is not up to us to decide that that suffering is unjust or unneccesary. We accept suffering in other species every day (Meat industry, animal testing etc. etc.) because we have a moral framework that encompasses just about everything on Earth and says what is and isn;t acceptable. But applying that framework outside the closed moral system of Earth is inappropriate and wrong, and, in the absence of something better, we have to fall back on the Babyeaters to decide the acceptability of any moral action that involves only members of their own species.

That's circular. Ultimately you have to appeal to something external beyond 'we can do it because we can, we can't because we can't'. You need to take an externality like 'so and so suffers', and then the above weakness comes into play.

You're just flat out wrong on that IMO. There's nothing external that we can appeal to without applying our own morality to something absolutely alien - there are no absolute rights or wrongs, only contextual ones, and that context can't be considered universal. We can't eat babies because as a species, we've decided that we won't. They, as a species, have accepted that they can and should. The details might get messy and grey at the boundaries of human-babyeater interaction, but the core argument, as far as I'm concerned, is effectively over.

If the argument is that human morality no longer applies to babyeaters because the babyeaters are so vastly different from humans, and yet babyeater babies are basically human babies, I don't think the argument for that vast gap holds up.

Calling them "basically human" just ignores my point. They are analogous to human babies, but they aren't human babies. They will grow up to eat their own babies because that's the moral framework which their society has decided on (which is a consequence of an utterly different biological and social evolutionary history).

I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but frankly I'm yet to see any compelling evidence that we have any right at all to interfere with the babyeaters any more than the superhappies have to interfere with us.

[redsniper]

It's not. It's described as being a horrendous, drawn-out, tortuous death in the story. Even if it isn't rigorously experimentally proven to be such, for the sake of the story and scenario I think we can assume it as bad as the author says.

But that's the point.  There is NOTHING in the story other than that xenobiologist's (who has been a xenobiologist for less than 24 hours at this point) speculation to lend credence to this idea.  The author never conclusively confirms or denies that there is any pain being felt at all.

Oh hell, I don't remember. I figured that for the purposes of the thought experiment we were supposed to assume that the babyeaters' babies' deaths were as horrible as possible. Just as we're supposed to assume that Alderson dynamics work the way the author says, or assume that we have no chance of taking the Superhappies in a straight-up fight.

I mean, we also don't have any guarantee that the Superhappies can really remove all pain and suffering from the human race, they only claim they can. It may turn out that whatever procedure thay use has the unintended effect of giving us the ability to fire meson beams from our nipples and we end up conquering the whole galaxy with it.

[Herra Tohtori]

It's not. It's described as being a horrendous, drawn-out, tortuous death in the story. Even if it isn't rigorously experimentally proven to be such, for the sake of the story and scenario I think we can assume it as bad as the author says.

But that's the point.  There is NOTHING in the story other than that xenobiologist's (who has been a xenobiologist for less than 24 hours at this point) speculation to lend credence to this idea.  The author never conclusively confirms or denies that there is any pain being felt at all.

As the story points out: Of course they don't want to be eaten! Evolution would take care of any organism that wants to be eaten in a very short term!

They struggle, they fear, they're horrified by the hunt, and then they suffer for about a month as their body is dissolved first and brain last.


But I'll indulge you - maybe the Baby Eaters in fact form large gestalt entities (possibly subconsciously) by somehow assimilating the consciousnesses of the consumed children?

Maybe the children in fact continue their lives and even influence their "host" past their original form's existence? These are crystalline forms of life, after all - I wouldn't be surprised if they had developed a way to do this. Many animals in nature actually feed on their young if they happen to end up short of nutrition themselves. Perhaps this crystalline branch of life actually has developed its own way of optimizing the performance of individuals, an ability to develop that isn't limited to reproductionary, Darwinian evolution? Rather than death of an individual resulting in the loss of their life experience and potential, preserve it in the entity that consumes them?

Who knows? The Baby Eaters might not know this themselves. Maybe they are simply convinced that eating the babies is a good thing - just as I'm fairly convinced that ability to suffer is vital for human health.

We could both be right, and we could both be wrong - but do the Superhappies care about anything but their ability to enforce their vision of good upon the species they meet?

[General Battuta]

You're just flat out wrong on that IMO. There's nothing external that we can appeal to without applying our own morality to something absolutely alien - there are no absolute rights or wrongs, only contextual ones

It's exactly the contradiction encapsulated there that is so troublesome to human cognition.

[StarSlayer]

The minute I read Big ****ing Edward this popped in my head...


Anyway, I find the Superhappies' no pain plan an anathema, more to the point I don't see them as any different then any other imperialistic hegemony.  Take away the veneer of hanky panky and they are just your run of the mill scifi villains.  I mean ****, how do we know its not some Brave New World gimmick they've instituted to keep their populace in line?  The humans are basing their decisions on a five minute porno, their technological disadvantage and some grey scale chick, that's no basis for analyzing what being annexed by these hedonistic asshats entails.   I'd pop the contact system star, not only because I find the Superhappies loathsome but it would be hypocritical to save ourselves and leave the baby eaters to be assimilated by them.

[zookeeper]

Herra, you keep repeating that we don't know if removal of the ability to suffer would make life better or not.

The only one we can ask that is someone who's had their ability to suffer removed. What do you think they'd say? Would anyone say that "nah, I preferred my ability to suffer"? Not really, because that'd already mean that they're discontent with their current state, which equates to a mild form of suffering. The removal of the ability to suffer from someone would necessarily mean that said someone wouldn't want to revert the change, because they'd simply lack the motivation to do so.

If you change someone against their will, then the fact that you did it against their will can't be wrong if your change also changes their mind about it, making them happy with or even indifferent towards said change. Of course any suffering you inflict to them during the process can still be wrong.

[Mikes]

Absolutely. Humans aren't morally permitted to eat babies. Babyeaters are.

You are absolutely correct as morals (by the scientific definition of the word) are indeed specific to certain cultures. Morals define what is right and wrong for THAT culture, no more no less.

But since we have ethics as a discipline to examine morals...   it just means the problem is an ethical one

[Bobboau]

Black Wolf, I find your absolutist tone regarding moral relativism to be ironic, "it is absolutely wrong for us to hold morals as an absolute", as I already mentioned once, this is it's self one of those human relative values. I believe it is derived from valuing self determination. but what ever the case may be, it is just as misguided to try and establish 'enforcing ones moral/ethical framework on another species is absolutely wrong' as it is to try and establish 'eating one's own offspring is absolutely wrong' or for that matter 'allowing any suffering in another is absolutely wrong'

[Black Wolf]

I'll grant you, the absolute nature of the ideal can be called into question. But non interference remains the best option in this scenario, and, excepting where there is neccesary interspecies crossover (i.e. trading or xenobiology or whatever - when they're right in each others faces, and actions (with ensuing consequences) take place), I can't think of any scenario where we could apply our morals to another species.

The other thing to remember is that, in this scenario, we're taking the role of the humans. The question is "What would you do?", not "What is absolutely right". Without a universal moral code (which I agree (and have stated in this thread) is impossible), then all we can do is apply human ethics to a situation, and human ethics should ensure non-interference. We might not be able to (or have to) force that on other species (i.e. we're not morally obligated to enter into a suicidal war with the superhappies to stop them converting the babyeaters) but we can certainly expect it, and base our actions on it.

Regardless of position, I still don't think there's any moral alternative t blowing the meeting-system's star. What the humans did in the story was wrong.

[Bobboau]

well, I don't know, it wasn't discussed in the story, but I would assume that if they had tried anything with the superhappies there they would have stopped it, and I would have been worried about there being more superhappies in system that would have stopped any attempt to pop the star. so from a pragmatic point of view, throwing the BEs at to the SHs and closing the door before they turned to us seems like a fairly good way to go.

[zookeeper]

Meh, I had missed this one earlier.

So where and how do you draw the line? At what point does it become ok for you, as A, to intervene when B hurts C? As you're well aware, species is a completely arbitrary separator, so could you explain why would you choose to pick that instead of any of the other equally valid separators available to you (such as age, political views or the number of limbs)?

Species is not an arbitrary separator. Consider - our morality evolved in response to millions of years of evolutionary pressure and thousands of years of societal pressures. None of those pressures, outside of those exerted by the universal framework of evolution - neccesarily applied to the babyeaters, since they evolved on a planet thousands of light years away.

How my morality evolved has absolutely no effect on whether I should act according to it. Neither do I see any reason to, nor have you provided one, to limit the scope of my morality to only those whose morality has evolved in a similar manner to mine. I really really really don't see how that would make any more sense than using any other separator.

Applying our morla framework to them is equivalent to hunting down and punishing every orca in the sea for eating whales - after al, if species is an arbitrary separator, we should hold all species to account equally.[/bw]

Huh, why would I want to hunt down and punish every orca in the sea for eating whales? What's the equivalent situation between humans which you think I'd support? I guarantee that whatever it is (I'm guessing hunting down a murderer and punishing them), the reason why I wouldn't do the same for orcas is not the fact that they're of a different species or don't share my idea of morality, but the fact that they're stupid and punishing them wouldn't have any positive effects. Just like how if I could be certain that hunting down and punishing a murderer would have no benefits at all, I'd rather not do that. Not to mention that I don't support punishment of criminals anyway; it's useless, unlike for example making them actually compensate the damage they've caused.

However, I wouldn't have any objections whatsoever to humanely killing all predators or other animals which hurt others as long as I'd be convinced that the overall amount of suffering would reduced. That's what my moral framework is about; species is irrelevant.

Code: [Select]

Ok or not ok for A to intervene when B hurts C?
A: Human     B: Human     C: Babyeater
A: Babyeater B: Babyeater C: Human
A: Human     B: Babyeater C: Human
A: Babyeater B: Human     C: Babyeater
I'd especially like to hear why - assuming that I'm correct when I guess that "ok" is your answer to all of them - would it be ok for a human to prevent another human from hurting a babyeater when the babyeater is, as you say, of another species and we therefore have no moral responsibility of their well-being. Point being, if you truly are not concerned about the suffering of babyeaters, then you cannot be concerned about suffering of babyeaters inflicted on them by other humans.

Interactions of the wo species outside the limited ones int his story become complex. For example, I would expect Babyeaters to follow human laws while within human legal jurisdictions, given that entering ito them implies consent to local laws. I would accept the right of a human to help another human defend himself against a Babyeater, just as I would expect humans to judge harshly another human who attacked a babyeater. But those are situations that involve humans, and our moralty has to come into play in those situations. But the options they were considering in this story - genocide and species-wide genetic manipulation to fundamentally alter another, utterly alien species because it didn't fit into our morality - are flat-out wrong. They're talking about making moral judgemens in how one alien deals with another alien within their own internally consistent morality, and that's wrong, whether we're doing it or the supperhappies are.

Their morality isn't internally consistent: almost every babyeater says that eating babies is great but also protests against getting eaten themselves. That's as inconsistent as saying that stealing is wrong but that it's still great for you to steal from someone else.

Also, the bolded part: well what have we been talking about if not human morality!? If I'm asking you a moral question then saying that human morality would have to come into play is no answer. The question was why would you consider it to be wrong if a human went and tortured a babyeater even if local laws didn't prohibit it in any way and it resulted in no ill effects to anyone but the babyeater?

Finally, are you really going to say that you think it would be wrong for a babyeater to prevent another human from torturing you? That'd be a perfectly consistent conclusion from what you've said, and frankly I think that shows how your view can't really hold water... unless you really agree with the said notion, which I doubt.

The whole idea of species being a sensible separator sounds awfully bizarre when you consider that evidently my morality has more in common with that of the Superhappies than with yours, and your morality has more in common with that of the Babyeaters than with mine, don't you think?

[newman]

Forcing entire species to change their way of life, no matter how noble your intentions are, is wrong. While what the babyeaters do is morally reprehensible to us, I don't think we're nearly qualified enough to make interventions on that scale; change the way of life of an entire species, the values of which evolved during eons of development, conditions and events we don't really understand because we weren't there. We're hardwired to see things our way and find their way unacceptable because of the conditions present during our own biological, intellectual and social evolution. They're hardwired to see things their way due to conditions present during their own evolution. This makes both parties biased and not qualified to make decisions on who's right and who's wrong. The story uses extreme examples to tickle the brain, but the overall point of not meddling in things we can't possibly understand is what I think we should take away from here. If you find the ending in which the Superhappies force change on earth unacceptable then it is equally unacceptable to go meddle in babyeater affairs.
In short, humanity needs to get over itself and figure out that not everything is our business, no matter how tempting the intervention seems to be. Hell, we can't even forcibly intervene in other human nation's affairs without causing more harm than good - I think it's safe to say that intervening in an alien species's way of life would end in disaster
BTW Battuta great read, thanks for linking that.

[zookeeper]

Forcing entire species to change their way of life, no matter how noble your intentions are, is wrong.

Why? No one's giving any kind of solid reasoning for why it would be.

[Bobboau]

while I find myself in general agreement with that statement, I am quick to admit it is based on little more than a gut feeling.

[newman]

Why? No one's giving any kind of solid reasoning for why it would be.

I did give reasoning. I refer you to the part of my post that states that moral values of each species evolved based on conditions present during each species biological, social, and intellectual development. This results in both species being hardwired to see things through the prism of a set of values that evolved over the course of each species's evolution. This also means said species are biased and not qualified to make judgements on what the other one's way of life should be like. Yes, I see baby eating as wrong, reprehensible, and revolting. But I do acknowledge that I base that attitude on a set of values that I didn't invent, but was inherited. This means that my own opinion is biased and I can no longer say - as ridiculous as it may sound - that baby eating is universally wrong for everyone, everywhere, at any time. What would have happened if I grew up in a society where baby eating was not only acceptable but considered the basis of all good? Would my revulsion to it have remained the same? Of course not - there's no absolutes when it comes to moral values. If I grew up in baby eater society I would consider any alien civilization trying to force me to abandon my inherited set of values evil. Just as I see the Reapers evil and Commander Sheppard good. I'm sure the Reapers have their own perspective on the matter So, I can accept that my moral values work for me and my culture, and will keep adhering to them and applying them within the confines of my own culture. I will not try to apply them to cultures I can't begin to understand and will rather spend my time working with things I am qualified to work with. I think every civilization should have the right to live the way they choose to as long as it doesn't threaten others. They should also have the right to defend their way of life by force if need be.

[zookeeper]

Why? No one's giving any kind of solid reasoning for why it would be.

I did give reasoning. I refer you to the part of my post that states that moral values of each species evolved based on conditions present during each species biological, social, and intellectual development. This results in both species being hardwired to see things through the prism of a set of values that evolved over the course of each species's evolution. This also means said species are biased and not qualified to make judgements on what the other one's way of life should be like. Yes, I see baby eating as wrong, reprehensible, and revolting. But I do acknowledge that I base that attitude on a set of values that I didn't invent, but was inherited. This means that my own opinion is biased and I can no longer say - as ridiculous as it may sound - that baby eating is universally wrong for everyone, everywhere, at any time.

Sure, but that also means that you can't say it in any context. If you can't say that it's wrong for aliens to eat their babies, then you can't say that it's wrong for humans (humans other than you, that is) to eat babies either. If me and my babyeater friend are sitting down to have dinner, with a human baby on my plate and a babyeater baby on my friend's plate, then it would be utterly inconsistent for you to interrupt my dinner but not my friend's dinner just because I'm of the same species as you. If I think eating human babies is great and my friend thinks eating babyeater babies is great, then neither of us shares your set of values and for all intents and purposes we might both be equally alien to you except for our physiology. What would the moral values of the human species be in that case; for or against babyeating?

What you're saying is that your own opinion (and everyone else's opinion, too) is biased and because of that you can't tell someone who has different values than you what to do, which is sort of fine. However, you're then adding in an extra condition that the aforementioned only applies if the other guy is of a different species than you, regardless of how alien or similar to you they actually are. That still doesn't make sense.

What would have happened if I grew up in a society where baby eating was not only acceptable but considered the basis of all good? Would my revulsion to it have remained the same? Of course not - there's no absolutes when it comes to moral values. If I grew up in baby eater society I would consider any alien civilization trying to force me to abandon my inherited set of values evil. Just as I see the Reapers evil and Commander Sheppard good. I'm sure the Reapers have their own perspective on the matter So, I can accept that my moral values work for me and my culture, and will keep adhering to them and applying them within the confines of my own culture. I will not try to apply them to cultures I can't begin to understand and will rather spend my time working with things I am qualified to work with. I think every civilization should have the right to live the way they choose to as long as it doesn't threaten others. They should also have the right to defend their way of life by force if need be.

Sure, but that doesn't really work, as it doesn't give you answers in a lot of situations. For example:

What do you do when an isolated backwards religious cult, which just wants to be left alone to live life the way they like to, mutilates their unwilling children horribly? You must let them, as to do otherwise would be interfering in their business.

What do you do when a babyeater scientist, who likes the same music as you and wants to be your friend and really doesn't want to eat babies, defects and pleads for asylum and the other babyeaters would do horrible things to him if they caught him? You must refuse, as to do otherwise would be interfering in their business.

What do you do when an alien society with a population of 1 million is ruled by a single brutal dictator and all the rest 999999 are asking you to help them and you easily could? You must refuse, as to do otherwise would be interfering in their business.

There's an infinite amount of scenarios in which your proposed system breaks down, because a clear line can't be drawn between someone either being or not being part of your culture, or even your species. It's entirely plausible that an alien could be closer to you culturally and philosophically than millions of humans are. Not in terms of table manners or what sort of art they enjoy, but in terms of what they think about issues like the one we're talking about, the important things.

[newman]

There's an infinite amount of scenarios in which your proposed system breaks down, because a clear line can't be drawn between someone either being or not being part of your culture, or even your species. It's entirely plausible that an alien could be closer to you culturally and philosophically than millions of humans are. Not in terms of table manners or what sort of art they enjoy, but in terms of what they think about issues like the one we're talking about, the important things.

I do see where you're coming from and that line of thinking does have some merit. You are assuming, however, that there is a chance that I (or some other human, doesn't matter who) could possibly find myself close and more compatible with an alien whose set of values were based on conditions completely alien to us. I suppose it's possible, but in the context of the story this thread is about, highly unlikely. The story was, after all, written in a way to make the alien cultures about as incompatible to our own as possible.
It's impossible to make a rule that makes 100% sense in every given situation. Since that is the case, in my opinion the safest thing to do is to have a strict inter species non-interference policy; let each species apply their own rules to their own and inside their own space. If they don't like the fact that earthlings frown on stuff like eating babies, don't come to Earth. If a human doesn't like babies getting eaten, then maybe that human should think twice before booking his next vacation at YummyBaby Prime.
As for a religious cult that mutilates their own children, my reaction would depend on whose cult it is. If it's alien I'd consider it their internal matter. If it's human, then those people grew up on this planet and I will drop a human set of values on them like a ton of bricks.
That said, the story was written intentionally so no easy answers could be found. I'm not saying my solution makes sense. I just think that when no solution make sense at all, go with the safe thing. In this case that's non interference.

[Mikes]

Forcing entire species to change their way of life, no matter how noble your intentions are, is wrong.

Suppose their way of life consists of visiting other species star systems... and blowing them up ?

[newman]

Suppose their way of life consists of visiting other species star systems... and blowing them up ?

First of all, naturally non interference can only apply if that means nobody threatens the other party. Secondly, however, that is quite a ridiculous supposition.
See, we're talking about a specie's base values here: those start evolving from the moment they develop sentience. Visiting other star systems, however, comes much later in a specie's development, when they're already intellectually mature. So we wouldn't be talking about some custom or value that's hardwired into them since the dawn of time; they would have to develop interstellar flight and technology to make a star go nova, and then make a conscious decision to go obliterating other race's solar systems. If they do that, they've pretty much crossed a line and given anyone with enough technology to defend themselves no choice but to respond in force.