In the "ecolitan" series of SF novels, L.E. Modesitt builds what I consider a very interesting ethics domain. It has been a decade since I read the signature novel where he spells out the enigma. I think it should have been called an dilemma, but I didn't write it, so ... oh well.
Here is the basic idea behind the enigma. In order to prevent the killing of millions and perhaps billions of people in wars that are created for gain (all kinds) or political power or advantage, it is more ethical to kill those trying to start the wars than to wait until the war begins.
Modesitt posits the "Ecolitan Institute" which has learned total mastery of eco science and genetic manipulation. They train ninja like professors who enforce the edicts handed down by the "Ecolitan Prime". This is one person who takes the entire ethical weight of every institute policy upon himself or herself. And if you cross the institute by starting an unjust war BY THEIR STANDARDS... or FAIL to enter into a justified war BY THEIR STANDARDS, you can expect your planet to suffer a plague of biblical proportions.
One of the more interesting tenets of the ecolitan policy is that "Populations are held responsible for their governments." So if you have a dictator who starts an unjust war, you the people will be killed just as will the dictator.
It doesn't take long for responsible elections to become the norm.
But that is fiction. What about real life? Let's bring the ecolitan institute to earth and put it in Europe in 1920. What would the world look like today?
Originally posted by PalynkaLOL
1950-something... I'm sorry if I'm trolling your thread with pedantry. Ahem... Carry on!
I am glad to have you on board with any contribution. I looked up PKD and he wrote "report" in 1956(edit... movie was started in 1999). It was made into a movie I guess.
Modesitt's ethics seem to be born out of Heinlein, with a big kick from Ayne Rand I would guess. In this series, his protagonist seems a bit like a mix between Dagney Taggart and John Galt.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat is self imposed. If a provable mistake is made, then depending upon severity, the "Prime" kills himself or exiles herself. And should the Prime fail to recognize a mistake, his agents are duty bound to take him/her out.
And who judges the "ninjas"?
edit... In order to get around this dilemma, Modesitt invents "fidelitrol" which is a drug that is put into drink, is totally harmless, but makes it impossible for the drugged person to lie. Therefore, it is always possible to get to the "exact truth" as the drugged person sees it. A very handy drug. Remember that the institute has "total control" of genetics and biology.
Originally posted by StarValleyWySelf-imposed, therefore bound to fail.
That is self imposed. If a provable mistake is made, then depending upon severity, the "Prime" kills himself or exiles herself. And should the Prime fail to recognize a mistake, his agents are duty bound to take him/her out.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAll citizens are killed or just those who supported the war?
One of the more interesting tenets of the ecolitan policy is that "Populations are held responsible for their governments." So if you have a dictator who starts an unjust war, you the people will be killed just as will the dictator.
Originally posted by PalynkaThat is the dilemma. In "Enigma", an empire has a large moon that is the "military hub". This empire is found to be guilty of eco war and terrorism that has killed up to 20 million people (starvation) throughout several other "empires" in an effort to put "distrust" onto the several other empires and/or the ecolitan institute.
All citizens are killed or just those who supported the war?
The institute (through the Prime) sends a heavily loaded freighter into the moon at half c . The moon is destroyed and "ten million on the planet below are killed". Or as near as I can remember.
These people are considered guilty by association, as they failed to keep their military under proper political control.
edit... This collateral damage is seen as an ethical error severe enough that the ecolitan Prime exiles himself, even though a war is prevented wherein "Billions" of innocents would have been killed.
Perhaps this is the question. Is it ethical to kill millions in order to save billions? Do ethics translate to powers of tens?
It has always been amusing to me that those who claim that conservatives are "absolutists" seem to by almost universally sure that "You can't kill, no matter what! War is WRONG!" which seems to be extremely "absolutist".
Originally posted by PalynkaIf? Doesn't that statement seem to indicate that everyone is a potential "victim"?
Lemma: Any system that depends on the good-will of its leaders will end up being dominated by the least scrupulous of its members.
This gets to the heart of the "liberal" vs. "conservative" notion of "victimhood". Liberals seem convinced that everyone can or will be a victim and conservatives think that anyone who is a victim deserves to be a victim because they did not ACT. Modern liberals are good thinkers. Conservatives are good actors.
Classical "liberals" were good thinkers and actors. But classical liberalism is dead.
Originally posted by KazetNagorralol
How does knowing the truth prevent power abuse?
Well, it would remove "doubt of guilt" and allow a moral "killing" of the guilty. Or at least that is the premise of the ecolitan institute.
Assume you have Hitler under the amazing truth drug the moment he publishes Mein Kamph. You ask him "Will you kill all the jews in the world if you should become ruler and have the ability and power to do it?" and he responds "Yes".
Are you going to let him recover from the truth drug and walk out of the building?
edit... In the Enigma book, one of the reasons why the Prime exiles himself is that he "Had a very good idea that the Military of the rogue empire was out of control ten years ago" and failed to kill them then. He chose to "wait" for proof and when their subtrafuge was discovered, twenty million were already dead.