Wraith Defenders Club

[Karhedron]

I don't know if I think being raised to feel guilty for killing was a bad thing even though she is a wraith. Yes she needed to feed, but her guilt did keep her biology in check. It did prevent her from killing without conscience, and it did prevent her from killing arbitrarily: she only did it when she absolutely had to thereby lessening the destructive impact that a consciousless killer would have.

She was truly a sad character eh?

WK

Yes she was.
But her fathers education complicated things for her. It is not like a human who can switch to be a vegetarian. She had to kill. And thanks to her father she felt guilt for something she couldn't avoid. If I would get stuck on a planet with sparse edible plants and some animals...I would eat those animals. And not feel like a consciousless killer. It's one thing to respect the food you hunt (like native americans did) and another to condemn yourself for something that is just natural. And Wraiths feeding on humans is natural. Although humans might see this differently

[Wraith Cake]

[QUOTE=toomuchcaf;8341889]I agree with Wraith Cake and Kar about Elia being a victim.

Ah, issues of the conscience, ethics...morality--I love discussion like this. They are sooo juicy, and definitely a "meeting of the minds" Anyway, back to the discussion: morality. Is it a human construct, or a human observation? Are non-human animals incapable of conscious choice? Are we and other "sentient" beings ruled only by instinct? Do human beings have instincts and if so how does that "biology" dictate our humanity? I hear what you are saying, however it is all too often a "convenient" argument made by ascetics and atheists (not that you are necessarily making this) that morality is a human construct ergo very little logical basis for it beyond “fluffy” feelings of warm fuzzies. There is a wonderful book called Elephants Cry Too by Florence Lambert and in it she looks at the "morality" and conscience of animals. It is amazingly eye opening. My man often stops me when I go off on a tangent about animals because this is where I get rather loopy: What is the nature of man? Who decides what it means to be human? I have done extensive study on the communicative abilities of non human primates (this was also part of my course of study). A documentary (made illegally) called Koko-A Talking Gorilla by Barbet Schroeder details the fascinating study on the humanity of Koko the lowland gorilla—she is definitely a “person”. In fact she was given a human IQ test. The average human IQ is 100 (meaning there are those who score higher and those who score lower—all within in the “normal” range of intelligence.) She scored 90. Does she have a conscience? Does she have instincts? Does she suppress her “instincts” for greater goals? Yes, yes, and yes. It is not in the best interests of pharmapseudical companies to ascribe “personhood” to great apes. They are so like us (but of course not exactly), if we don’t think of them as people we don’t have to have a “conscience” about testing drugs on them!! We can torture them, send them too the moon….(I will stop here.) Anyhoooo, the wraith of course have instincts, but like all beings of “personhood” they have the moral reasoning to suppress it according to “right and wrong” and achieving greater goals. Todd has done so several times, though he was starving to death. Sheppard was surprised at this, he also thinking that the wraith had no control over their instinctive compulsions.

I don’t have an issue with the wraith being “evil” or even choosing to be so. The less responsibility we take for the decisions we make (it’s my biology, it’s my instincts, it’s the way I was raised etc. – though of course reasonably there area mitigating circumstances in each of these situations) the less control we have of our lives, the less freedom we have to shape our own futures. I’m sorry I get on a rant. I don’t mean to be dogmatic, I love discussion such as these and thank you for taking the time to read my ramble.


WK

[Wraith Cake]

You know I was thinking, although the wraith are evil, they don't seem interested in changing our minds about this: they do not pretend to be what they are not. They do not "pretend" to be good, or assuage our conscience with their intentions, they do not make apologies about their behaviour. It seems to be a pragmatic course of action when they visit devastation on various planets--they are tactically sending a message: do not overstep your bounds, remember who your masters are, like Kolia, "it's nothing personal" not because they hate humans. Also, when possible they have a working relationship with some technologically advanced peoples. Too lazy to look up right now, but "Eric the emissary of the wraith" He told the leader guy--what's his name in Condemned, that their two people had an arrangement that worked. The wraith would only feed on the most violent of criminals, if they were provided a steady stream of them. In turn the wraith left everyone else alone. The wraith seemed content to do this, which is definitely reasonable and a short term solution. In fact this boarders on "good" behaviour--depending on whether you are for or against capitol punishment.

At least they don't assume the role of "benevolent guardians" as the Ancients have seen themselves to be though continuing to be just a ruthless at times.

WK

[toomuchcaf]

Morality and ethics are such a grey area.

Read in the newspaper that a group overseas is petitioning the courts to have an ape given personhood. Not to have the rights for votes etc, but because money was left for him in an estate, and in order to use it, it must have a trustee, which only people in that country are legally entitled to have.

But it leads on to the question, where do we stop? In testing, yes apes are tested, because they are close in structure to humans. Say that such testing is stopped, because they are recognised world wide as intelligent, morally capable creatures like humans. What is there to say that we should not test other animals for such traits? Or, if apes are animals, and we should not test on them, what right do we have to test on mice? They feel pain, they are intelligent. Once that starts, what traits must animals posses to grant immunity from testing?

But as a species, we have a moral obligation to develop ways to treat our sick.

It is a catch 22 situation. To provide the best care for our kind, we must test on other creatures. If other creatures have the same reasoning and virtues as us, we must not test on them, but if we don't test on them, we can't test on the 'lesser' creatures either.

(By the way, I do not support the testing on apes, but I thought I would continue in the debate, devils advocate.)

[dasNdanger]

I'm here - just too tired to post. Weekend is really catching up to me. Interesting discussion...wish I had the energy to join in...I usually love this stuff. But right now, I wanna curl up into a ball and go sleepies. Might add something tomorrow.


das

[Wraith Cake]

Yes she was.
But her fathers education complicated things for her. It is not like a human who can switch to be a vegetarian. She had to kill. And thanks to her father she felt guilt for something she couldn't avoid. If I would get stuck on a planet with sparse edible plants and some animals...I would eat those animals. And not feel like a consciousless killer. It's one thing to respect the food you hunt (like native americans did) and another to condemn yourself for something that is just natural. And Wraiths feeding on humans is natural. Although humans might see this differently

Yes, yes of course, and if there was none of these around we would also resort to cannibalism.
However, a human is not an "animal" or "a beast without reason" (King James version). Killing a human is murder (either first degree or second degree or manslaughter etc.) and that *IS* the difference. If one ascribes to asceticism or atheism or any of the "non-anthropomorphic" philosophies here then killing a wild flower or a tree, or trilobite or bacterial culture or any of the various plants indigenous to Laos is the same as killing a person. Typically, we don't tend to think that way. I will concede that killing a wraith is also murder: hence Sheppard has blood on his hands.

WK

[Wraith Cake]

I'm here - just too tired to post. Weekend is really catching up to me. Interesting discussion...wish I had the energy to join in...I usually love this stuff. But right now, I wanna curl up into a ball and go sleepies. Might add something tomorrow.


das

After missing six days of work, I think (looks over her shoulder) I might be getting better. I hope so, and it sounds like you're over your flu too.

Discuss, discuss tomorrow. Night night.

WK

[Traveler64]

the hive.


the condemned. they're both in season two.

THANKS and HIVE FIVE! ***you've got Das to blame for that greeting!***

I watched 'condemned' the other night. I had completely forgotten about that Wraith episode. That was very interesting, if not a bit... uh... weird. I can't recall now exactly, but I found it telling when the Wraith said that 'we evolved' from such habits, or was it 'diverged'? but that some still enjoyed such civilized (is that what he said? Darn... I should watch it again) things. Of course, he fed on the chef when he didn't like the food; which intimates that he does have taste buds. The salivating bit was not so nice. I suppose it made a point. What, I am not sure.

I should get the next two Season 2 discs from Neflix within a day or two and I'll watch the Hive.

But, it is interesting how one's viewing focus changes now that the Wraith narrative evolved into multifaceted characters like Todd. The two dimensional character of the early Wraiths is quite obvious, but also how quickly the move in and out of the story, without much volume to their personality.

OK, now on to reading the last two days of posts...

[Karhedron]

Yap..hope you're feeling better now

Yes, yes of course, and if there was none of these around we would also resort to cannibalism.
However, a human is not an "animal" or "a beast without reason" (King James version). Killing a human is murder (either first degree or second degree or manslaughter etc.) and that *IS* the difference. If one ascribes to asceticism or atheism or any of the "non-anthropomorphic" philosophies here then killing a wild flower or a tree, or trilobite or bacterial culture or any of the various plants indigenous to Laos is the same as killing a person. Typically, we don't tend to think that way. I will concede that killing a wraith is also murder: hence Sheppard has blood on his hands.

WK

Killing a human is only murder for humans. I don't think you can apply this on the Wraith. If we could only subsist through the eating of apes noone would consider that a murder. No matter their IQ. Because everyone considering it a murder would be dead. Died of starvation.

[Wraith Cake]

Morality and ethics are such a grey area.

Read in the newspaper that a group overseas is petitioning the courts to have an ape given personhood. Not to have the rights for votes etc, but because money was left for him in an estate, and in order to use it, it must have a trustee, which only people in that country are legally entitled to have.

But it leads on to the question, where do we stop? In testing, yes apes are tested, because they are close in structure to humans. Say that such testing is stopped, because they are recognised world wide as intelligent, morally capable creatures like humans. What is there to say that we should not test other animals for such traits? Or, if apes are animals, and we should not test on them, what right do we have to test on mice? They feel pain, they are intelligent. Once that starts, what traits must animals posses to grant immunity from testing?

But as a species, we have a moral obligation to develop ways to treat our sick.

It is a catch 22 situation. To provide the best care for our kind, we must test on other creatures. If other creatures have the same reasoning and virtues as us, we must not test on them, but if we don't test on them, we can't test on the 'lesser' creatures either.

(By the way, I do not support the testing on apes, but I thought I would continue in the debate, devils advocate.)

The other direction is Fascism, Unfortunately--the pendulum goes in both directions. Yes I too remember the Chimpanzee Hiasl from Austria and that was the issue "where" do we stop? Totally a valid point, and the debate begs the need for a definition. Without a "working definition" however we also have Eugenics and "Race" Theory. A person is only a person if he is male, a person is only a person if he has blond hair and blue eyes, ergo Jews, blacks, those with physical or mental disabilities are not "human". And don't forget, Hitler was elected, he did not force power. His first order of business to test the "conscience" of society was to quietly kill those who were institutionalize for physical and mental illnesses. Jews were widely not considered human--how else can one commit mass genocide without the willing belief of ones countrymen and women who share this perspective? Thank goodness not everyone did. Or even the genocidiers of Rwanda (many of whom have fled Rwanda and are living peaceful lives in Que.). The National Rwandan Radio constantly called the Tutsi "cockroaches" just before the genocide of '94. One of the first steps a government takes when they wish to "get rid" of a group of humans is to first dehumanize them in the press. Again, a wonderful sci fi book called "The code of the life maker" talks about the humanity of these organically formed humanoid robots and this very issue.
Anthropologist struggle for a definition all the time. It use to be "only humans can use tools" disproved "Only humans have language" disproved, "only humans are capable of moral reasoning" disproved (though highly debated). The truth is we do need a definition. Because we either destroy our environment, or we destroy ourselves.
A side note, my man constantly asks me the same question "Where do we stop then?", when I talk about the rights of primates.

WK

[Wraith Cake]

Yap..hope you're feeling better now



Killing a human is only murder for humans. I don't think you can apply this on the Wraith. If we could only subsist through the eating of apes noone would consider that a murder. No matter their IQ. Because everyone considering it a murder would be dead. Died of starvation.

Yes, back to the loop of what is human. The truth is though, common senscially no matter how we like to tap dance our way around a self perpetuating definitions of humanhood, if I could sit down with a chimpanzee and have this discussion I am having with you guys and gals, I would not even remotely believe that this individual was "not" a person. The wraith can do that with us. We are peers.

WK

[toomuchcaf]

The other direction is Fascism, Unfortunately--the pendulum goes in both directions. Yes I too remember the Chimpanzee Hiasl from Austria and that was the issue "where" do we stop? Totally a valid point, and the debate begs the need for a definition.
Anthropologist struggle for a definition all the time. It use to be "only humans can use tools" disproved "Only humans have language" disproved, "only humans are capable of moral reasoning" disproved (though highly debated). The truth is we do need a definition. Because we either destroy our environment, or we destroy ourselves.
A side note, my man constantly asks me the same question "Where do we stop then?", when I talk about the rights of primates.

WK

Unfortunately, in order to develope a definition, it would require a consensus of the nations. And this brings us full circle back to your previous posts about pity and shock. The only way a conglomerate would come close to a unanimous consensus would be if the act shocked all of them (such as the eventual actions of the united nations against Hitlers treatment of the jews).
If it does not, there is no impetus, or urgent need, to agree and act quickly. The war against the wraith would be seen in such a light, if it was put to the united nations publicly that this confrontation was happening. The shock horror of the plight of the PG humans would elicit a response from the masses, as well as all the nations. This would then impel them to go to all out war against the wraith.

[Wraith Cake]

At the end of the day, we are self protective as a species. What defines "species" unfortunately it is not as black and white as one would hope. If two creatures within a group can mate and produce "fertile" off-spring then they are of the same grouping. When there are hybrids, such as mules (hybrids of horses and donkeys) they are not often fertile, or Lygers (by product of Lions and Tiger and big a$$ to boot) they're the largest cat in existence and....they're huge. However, they cannot reproduce. Hence, I think Todd is shrewed, it's not who is human it's who has the power. Sadly, in the real world "might does equal right".
If humans and wraith can have babies ,and those babies can have babies then I guess this wraith/human murder bla bla is moot.




WK

[Wraith Cake]

Unfortunately, in order to develope a definition, it would require a consensus of the nations. And this brings us full circle back to your previous posts about pity and shock. The only way a conglomerate would come close to a unanimous consensus would be if the act shocked all of them (such as the eventual actions of the united nations against Hitlers treatment of the jews).
If it does not, there is no impetus, or urgent need, to agree and act quickly. The war against the wraith would be seen in such a light, if it was put to the united nations publicly that this confrontation was happening. The shock horror of the plight of the PG humans would elicit a response from the masses, as well as all the nations. This would then impel them to go to all out war against the wraith.

Ya, ya. true "might = right". Kofi Annan had the same slow response to the Tutsi slaughter sending the message loud and clear "If you are black and you are African" you are not human.

[Wraith Cake]

Anyway, peeps it's been a pleasure Toomuchcaf and Karhedron your arguments are thought provoking and delicious and have fed my mind for the evening. I have to bed, my covers call.

Night night and love you both.




WK