Wraith...Amoral or Immoral?

[Ouroboros]

They have a sense of morality. They have a concept of things like honor, honesty and some of them value those things.

You can't really judge them as a species to be immoral or not anymore than you can judge them as a species to be good or evil however. It's a question of individuals. Some will be more moral than others.

[Rise Of The Phoenix]

Don't blame the wraith for Stargate's bad science. It has been clearly confirmed, including in one of Joseph Mallozzi's blog entries, that an adult wraith canNOT survive off anything other than human/ancient/wraith lifeforce.

Did I actually blame the Wraith? I wasn't aware that this was mentioned in Joe M's blog as I haven't read the whole thing only parts and that still doesn't change the fact that the Wraith could possibly build some kind of feeding device into their ships that uses Humans DNA, rather than using Humans as their main food source.
What would happen if every single Human in the Pegasus galaxy was wiped?
The Wraith wouldn't have a food source and they'd have to find some other means of feeding or hibernate on board their ships while they try to travel to the Milky Way (which I'm not sure all of them no the location of anyway).

The only difference is that it makes humans dangerous (hence, the need for wraith to destroy any human society that develops technology). It doesn't grant humans any divine right to live.

I am aware that had the Humans of Pegasus developed the Technology needed to protect themselves they could and probably would become a threat and this could not be tolerated by the Wraith.
There are still potential alternatives to feeding off of an intelligent and predominantly innocent species (at least as far as the farmers of the Pegasus galaxies goes).

In my opinion as far as the survival of my species goes it does give Humans on the whole the right to live perhaps not divine but in reality.

Some do because of exceptional circumstances; most don't.

Was this also stated on Joe M's blog or is that based on your opinion of what you've seen in SGA of the Wraith?
As far as I'm concerned I just think that the Wraith think with their stomachs and only ever refrain from feeding when the risk of Humans being culled to extinction occurs.

[Shpinxinator]

Wraith consider murder wrong too. It's merely the definition of what is a murder, and what is not, that changes. Is killing a slave a murder? The answer used to be "no" at the time when there were slaves. Is killing an ape who displays more intellectual abilities than some humans a murder? Today's answer is "no". Is killing a peaceful replicator a murder in Stargate universe? The answer is "no".

For wraith, killing a human is not murder, because humans are not people. They are simply a means to survive.

With all due respect...by your argument it's in fact the humans of the Pegasus galaxy who are immoral for fighting to survive, since they have no "divine right" to survive then that should allow the Wraith to simply exercise their own divine right...As for killing slaves, yes it was considered murder...the public at large was not allowed to just go around killing slaves...true they were considered property however their life was not considered so meaningless that they weren't protected under some laws.

Regardless, they Wraith have been offered an alternative to feeding off humans and refused and choose to continue feeding, knowing the pain it caused people, making them immoral.

Ontop of all this, the Wraith have been shown to be sadistic in their culling habits, their cosmic fox hunting game with Runners and they obviously consider some humans to be "people" to the point of striking deals with them (Condemned, Allies, Common Ground etc.)

[Karhedron]

...
What would happen if every single Human in the Pegasus galaxy was wiped?
...

What happens in nature every time when the only foodsource of an animal goes extinct...they go with them

There are still potential alternatives to feeding off of an intelligent and predominantly innocent species (at least as far as the farmers of the Pegasus galaxies goes).

So it is not only one option but several. Ahh...well....which?

In my opinion as far as the survival of my species goes it does give Humans on the whole the right to live perhaps not divine but in reality.

Of course I would want myself and the ones I care for to be alive at the end of the day. But there is no right for that. If you have a predator of any kind nearby you stay out of its way,defend yourself against it or kill it before it does any harm. Humans are pretty good with the last option.

Was this also stated on Joe M's blog or is that based on your opinion of what you've seen in SGA of the Wraith?
As far as I'm concerned I just think that the Wraith think with their stomachs and only ever refrain from feeding when the risk of Humans being culled to extinction occurs.

Todd sees Humans partly different than most other Wraith do. But in the end that wouldn't matter. Even when he was helping them on some occasions he was still feeding. Aside from one episode you just didn't see it that's all.

[Laura Dove]

Did I actually blame the Wraith? I wasn't aware that this was mentioned in Joe M's blog as I haven't read the whole thing only parts and that still doesn't change the fact that the Wraith could possibly build some kind of feeding device into their ships that uses Humans DNA, rather than using Humans as their main food source.
What would happen if every single Human in the Pegasus galaxy was wiped?
The Wraith wouldn't have a food source and they'd have to find some other means of feeding or hibernate on board their ships while they try to travel to the Milky Way (which I'm not sure all of them no the location of anyway).

Oh, I'm the first one to agree that relying on a single food source is, to paraphrase Todd, a "significant vulnerability" of the wraith. It's evolutionary very dangerous for their species. But that doesn't make not finding an alternative food source amoral nor immoral -- just foolish.

I am aware that had the Humans of Pegasus developed the Technology needed to protect themselves they could and probably would become a threat and this could not be tolerated by the Wraith.
There are still potential alternatives to feeding off of an intelligent and predominantly innocent species (at least as far as the farmers of the Pegasus galaxies goes).
In my opinion as far as the survival of my species goes it does give Humans on the whole the right to live perhaps not divine but in reality.

Of course, because you are human. You'd defend your kind against a threat. But that's not the same combat as good versus evil; it's merely a combat for survival from both sides. None is more moral than the other. The only ones who can (arguably) be called more moral are those who are willing to make compromises (in BOTH camps!) to find a peaceful outcome.

Was this also stated on Joe M's blog or is that based on your opinion of what you've seen in SGA of the Wraith?
As far as I'm concerned I just think that the Wraith think with their stomachs and only ever refrain from feeding when the risk of Humans being culled to extinction occurs.

It's a deduction from what Michael says in "Allies" (the bold part): "You have given me a very rare perspective among the Wraith. Few of us have ever come to know the humans we are going to feed on as anything more than a means to survive -- and still, I would do what I had to do."

So while he wouldn't commit suicide just for the good of the human race (but which human would commit an excruciating suicide for the good of another species?), he admits he never thought of humans as people before.

With all due respect...by your argument it's in fact the humans of the Pegasus galaxy who are immoral for fighting to survive, since they have no "divine right" to survive then that should allow the Wraith to simply exercise their own divine right...

Oh no, I never said humans had no right to defend themselves or their kind. Wraith have no more divine right to live than humans: Both simply fight for their own survival.

However, there is a possible outcome that preserves BOTH races best interest: Allowing the wraith to find an alternative food source, with letting them enough time to adapt. Both need a little sacrifice in order for both to gain something on the long run.

As for killing slaves, yes it was considered murder...the public at large was not allowed to just go around killing slaves...true they were considered property however their life was not considered so meaningless that they weren't protected under some laws.

Yes, destroying the property of somebody else was illegal. However, a master had a right of life and death on his slaves, at least in ancient Rome.

Regardless, they Wraith have been offered an alternative to feeding off humans and refused and choose to continue feeding, knowing the pain it caused people, making them immoral.

When have they refused?? Last time I checked, Todd accepted to work on the retrovirus, albeit with little enthusiasm. But again, such a drastic change in their whole way of life can't be easy to accept.

Are you a vegetarian, or at least, do you refuse to eat meat from industrial farms? If no, how can you accuse wraith of not doing something you don't do either? (For the record, I do, and I still understand how reluctant wraith can be to "give themselves over".)

Ontop of all this, the Wraith have been shown to be sadistic in their culling habits, their cosmic fox hunting game with Runners and they obviously consider some humans to be "people" to the point of striking deals with them (Condemned, Allies, Common Ground etc.)

Individual wraith have been shown to be sadistic, yes, as well as some humans are sadistic. As for runners, there are only a handful of them in the whole galaxy, and what about humans who hunt for sport, not even eating the meat?

Neither the wraith in "Condemned" nor in "Allies" (except Michael himself) considered humans people. Their "deals" were merely a means to use them for their own advantage.

Todd, ever since "Common Ground", is different, though. He suffered so deeply for so long that he had basically lost any self-esteem. He was a mere "thing" in Kolya's hands, a tool, so he might have considered himself even lower than a human. He was very lonely, too, so much that company, any company, would be better than endless loneliness. In his situation, a human might even begin talking with inanimate objects to keep insanity at bay.

Then, Sheppard arrived and somehow gave him his life back. In later meetings, Todd didn't forget how much he was owing this human, so yes, his vision of humans was forever changed, even after he regained his self-assurance. But that doesn't mean anything about other wraith.

[Shpinxinator]

Oh, I'm the first one to agree that relying on a single food source is, to paraphrase Todd, a "significant vulnerability" of the wraith. It's evolutionary very dangerous for their species. But that doesn't make not finding an alternative food source amoral nor immoral -- just foolish.

It is amoral or immoral if that food source is a sentient life form

However, there is a possible outcome that preserves BOTH races best interest: Allowing the wraith to find an alternative food source, with letting them enough time to adapt. Both need a little sacrifice in order for both to gain something on the long run.

When have they refused?? Last time I checked, Todd accepted to work on the retrovirus, albeit with little enthusiasm. But again, such a drastic change in their whole way of life can't be easy to accept.

Again which has been offered....here are a few lines of dialogue from "The Queen"

Spoiler:

KELLER: We've come up with a gene therapy that alters Wraith D.N.A. in a small but significant way. In a nutshell, we think we can make it so that you and any other Wraith we treat will never need to feed on humans again.

(Todd and its second in command exchange a glance.)

WRAITH: This is absurd.

KELLER: Well, actually, it's not as big of a change as you might think. Your bodies already contain all the organs necessary to digest food.

SHEPPARD: Here ... (he tosses a fruit across the table to Todd, who catches it) ... try this.

TODD: If I consume this, it may give me a moment's pleasure, but it will not sustain me.

(It puts the fruit down on the table.)

KELLER: But that can change -- at least in theory

WRAITH: Why would we want this? Of what benefit is it?

SHEPPARD: Well, think about it: you could put yourself on regular food; you could give up all those tiresome cullings.

TEYLA: It would give you a significant advantage over other Hives.


SHEPPARD: Not to mention I could stop waiting for the chance to kill you -- in theory.

WRAITH: Our current feeding process gives us strength, our ability to heal, our longevity.

And a little more..

Spoiler:

TEYLA: What were you thinking?! You put both our lives at terrible risk.

TODD: I know. If you'll allow me to explain ...

TEYLA: How could you do this?

TODD: It was necessary. The former Queen was never going to accept your proposal.

As it is clear and Wraith had no interest in finding an alternative...a food source wasn't about survival it was about having power.

Yes, destroying the property of somebody else was illegal. However, a master had a right of life and death on his slaves, at least in ancient Rome.

Most "slaves" in the Roman empire were indentured servants, they had rights and most were even paid. What they did with their time wasn't their choice but their lives were valued.

Are you a vegetarian, or at least, do you refuse to eat meat from industrial farms? If no, how can you accuse wraith of not doing something you don't do either? (For the record, I do, and I still understand how reluctant wraith can be to "give themselves over".)

I am not a vegetarian but when I was young I spent a few months in a moral debate with myself and I came to the decision that if I would continue to eat meat I would do what ever I can to help any form of animal life, just because they help sustain me doesn't mean I don't respect them.

[s09119]

Why do some people insist that the Wraith should have tried creating their own way to not feed on humans thousands of years ago...? Humans never tried to create a way to no have to feed on meat (our bodies need the chemicals found in it, after all), but no one here would dare criticize us for that.

[tombombadil]

morals differ from person to person.

[jelgate]

morals differ from person to person.

yes and no. Their are some morals that people will debate over but their are other morals almost every human will say is wrong.

[tombombadil]

yes and no. Their are some morals that people will debate over but their are other morals almost every human will say is wrong.

such as........

[Laura Dove]

It is amoral or immoral if that food source is a sentient life form

Only in your own morality, where sentience (defined how precisely? would it be allowed for wraith to feed on mentally retarded people, or on people in a coma?) is the only criterion. But people could argue that killing and feeding on any being which can suffer is immoral, while other people could argue that only feeding on geniuses is immoral, because your standard human next door makes no difference on a larger scale. Things are not as simple as you'd like them to be.

Again which has been offered....here are a few lines of dialogue from "The Queen"
[snip dialogue]
And a little more..
[snip again]
As it is clear and Wraith had no interest in finding an alternative...a food source wasn't about survival it was about having power.

Spoilers for "The Queen" too:

Spoiler:

Wraith, just like humans, are not willing to make a sacrifice as big as rewriting their DNA, their essence, something they have always considered defines them, merely for the good of another species. That doesn't mean they refused: Todd was willing to accept, and despite all his doubts, Kenny followed him. As for the Primary, she appeared as very self-centred for the little we saw her, but another queen might have reacted differently.

Most "slaves" in the Roman empire were indentured servants, they had rights and most were even paid. What they did with their time wasn't their choice but their lives were valued.

Some were valued (the ones who were teaching children for example) and some even freed after a while, but don't we even protect the lives of our pets? And even more so the lives of working animals. That doesn't make killing an ox or a horse murder.

I am not a vegetarian but when I was young I spent a few months in a moral debate with myself and I came to the decision that if I would continue to eat meat I would do what ever I can to help any form of animal life, just because they help sustain me doesn't mean I don't respect them.

Simply put, if you eat meat from industrial farms, you endorse torture on the cattle and are in a very bad position to condemn wraith for the much shorter form of torture their feeding process is.

Why do some people insist that the Wraith should have tried creating their own way to not feed on humans thousands of years ago...? Humans never tried to create a way to no have to feed on meat (our bodies need the chemicals found in it, after all), but no one here would dare criticize us for that.

Our bodies don't even require meat: We can function very well as vegetarians. Being a vegan is harder because you tend to lack vitamins of the B group (don't remember which ones), but you can still cope with that without having to resort to altering your DNA.

such as........

Incest. AFAIK it's the only moral taboo all human societies share.

[StarOcean]

Murder is defined as an unlawful killing, and the law can pretty much say anything, so it's hardly a universal moral, it's relative.

Agreed. Murder is not universal moral because people do not apply it to everyone. Exclusions happen, whether based on race, beliefs, class, gender, etc. Most of us (I hope) consider it a murder if a woman is killed just because she decides to reject a suitor, because she has the right to. There are civilizations who do not agree because they believe women do not have the right to that choice. And in fact, even with that situation in our more enlightened countries, there are some people who would shoot off their mouth without thinking and imply it isn't murder. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the reaction of "Aw, no. S/he got killed by that guy/girl who says s/he loves her/him. It's not her/his fault that s/he killed her/him. S/he should have returned his/her affections. S/he didn't do anything wrong."

So I think that's true that there are morals people would hopefully all agree on. But it differs in how they define it, who they apply it to, and/or when is it considered criminal. And what laws and people define as morally right is different too.

That's not to say people aren't stupid and ignorant about how they define morals though. There are stupid people out there.

I see your point but the simple fact of he matter is, the Egyptians considered murder wrong long before Christianity, long before they even encountered the Jewish people as did he Greeks as did the ancient Chinese, same with theft and incest and cannibalism these things have been considered "wrong" since man has been able to think.

Depressingly, it doesn't matter if they considered murder wrong. Because for most ancient civilizations, the crime of murder was only applicable to their own people, or to the people in power. And that's still true today in some places. It's a right that those civilizations may preach, but in reality it's actually a privilege for themselves. For example in ancient Rome (or Greek, I can't remember which), if you killed a *man* of wealth, it was murder- a criminal violation of their right to live. If you killed anyone else? Oh well. Legally, and public attitude, was that someone was killed, but it wasn't considered murder, and it wasn't considered wrong. It's only wrong in terms of being an offense against the person who has power over the victim. Be it wife, slave, servant, etc.

And in terms of being lawful, killing slaves wasn't considered murder in most civilizations either. People may feel pity for the slaves and argue that they're being mistreated, but it wasn't murder. Someone was killed, but it wasn't considered a criminal act. Thank goodness for people who can recognize that the laws themselves can be unjustly inhumane and fight against it.

With all due respect...by your argument it's in fact the humans of the Pegasus galaxy who are immoral for fighting to survive, since they have no "divine right" to survive then that should allow the Wraith to simply exercise their own divine right...As for killing slaves, yes it was considered murder...the public at large was not allowed to just go around killing slaves...true they were considered property however their life was not considered so meaningless that they weren't protected under some laws.

Humans of PG are not immoral for fighting to survive. They do have the right to survive. Just like the Wraith have the right to survive. What they, Wraith or human, don't have the right to do is to say that they deserve to live over the other race.

People have the right to live. What they don't have is a divine right to live. When people start saying that, they're saying it's morally correct that they survive at the expense others. And that's dangerous thinking, because they start justifying immoral acts. Because they're special.

Steal from other people? Kill people who are in your way? Acceptable. You win the war? You think the enemy is evil and you justify any cruelty, endorsing that they deserve it. When all they're trying to do is survive. And because morality was brought as an argument to surviving, this proves that you're not special, and provides the counterargument that you don't deserve to live.

Or to use an old saying to be more blunt: The universe does not revolve around you.

The laws that protected those slaves treated them as property. Not people. The public were not allowed to kill slaves randomly because they belonged to someone.

"Incest. AFAIK it's the only moral taboo all human societies share." - Laura Dove

I don't think that's actually true. There has to be consideration to what that particular society considers as incest. Or rather, what incestuous relation is taboo. Reproduction between siblings was allowed in some societies. Or between first cousins. (Your child marries your sibling's child.) Some societies don't consider it incest if one marries their cousin if they're a few times removed.

I do hope that incest, between parent and their own child, is taboo everywhere.

[Rise Of The Phoenix]

Oh, I'm the first one to agree that relying on a single food source is, to paraphrase Todd, a "significant vulnerability" of the wraith. It's evolutionary very dangerous for their species. But that doesn't make not finding an alternative food source amoral nor immoral -- just foolish.

OK I agree with you on this they are foolish for not finding some other means to feed, but say

Spoiler:

instead of giving them Keller's treatment to stop them needing to feed off of us

we were able to construct a device (or design one that they could easily reproduce, like if we gave them the step by step instructions) that they could install on their ships which could feed them forever and they refused it coz it would mean the end of their way of life

Spoiler:

I think Todd said something about this in First Contact to Keller, it was something like "what would we do?"

then surely that would be immoral, wouldn't it?

Of course, because you are human. You'd defend your kind against a threat. But that's not the same combat as good versus evil; it's merely a combat for survival from both sides. None is more moral than the other. The only ones who can (arguably) be called more moral are those who are willing to make compromises (in BOTH camps!) to find a peaceful outcome.

See that's where I do see a difference and Humans (no matter how you look at it) being the voice of morality in Pegasus as the majority of Wraith (probably not Todd as I do see that he wants to change things for the better for his people ) would not be willing to change and they probably wouldn't agree

Spoiler:

to take Keller's treatment even if it does work effectively leaving them with their strength and regenerative abilities intact

My point is we won't just let the Wraith feed off of Humans if we can help it (so there is no way we can compromise in this area), but we're obviously willing to try and find some other solution to the problem, whereas the Wraith aren't (at least not as far as we've seen on the show).

It's a deduction from what Michael says in "Allies" (the bold part): "You have given me a very rare perspective among the Wraith. Few of us have ever come to know the humans we are going to feed on as anything more than a means to survive -- and still, I would do what I had to do."

So while he wouldn't commit suicide just for the good of the human race (but which human would commit an excruciating suicide for the good of another species?), he admits he never thought of humans as people before.

I see, I'd forgotten about that.
The thing is that it's still ignorant when the evidence is obvious and staring them right in the face, I mean just over 10,000 years ago the Wraith destroyed a thousand worlds, most of which were probably filled with peaceful technological societies (proof that those people weren't just unintelligent food but capable of much more than being that).

Aside from a few individuals the Wraith on the whole don't appear to have much control of their instincts.
Had they worked together to create say a few dozen worlds with Human populations that were monitored by the Wraith as their sole food source and left the rest of the galaxy alone the Humans could have thrived.
Of course I know that this wouldn't be fare on those the Wraith fed on, but it would be preferable to the current way things are in the Pegasus galaxy.

I think by now you probably know my stance on the Wraith, but if not I'll rephrase what I've said before;

As a biological life form the Wraith obviously need to feed and as Human's are their only food source I don't think it's immoral that they have to feed.
I believe this would make them amoral as a species, at least from their perspective.

[Anon]

well, its also got to do with the way the wraith treat humans. when they cull, they just basically, play with thier food. They tourture us, tease us, and turn us against each other, all just for a good wraith belly laugh. Thats not moral. also they can feed off of each other, not just humans, but im not suggesting that they go cannible, even though that would be kool, anyway. They also can go and change thier make up, and never have to feed, but they dont want to try to change, (they already have the tech, they just dont want to do it, so they make atlantis do it to steal a ship or something (just a therory). So it is immoral, as of this point tin the wraiths tech, that they feed on humans

[Anon]

coz it would mean the end of their way of life

Spoiler:

I think Todd said something about this in First Contact to Keller, it was something like "what would we do?"

then surely that would be immoral, wouldn't it?

it is what would we be