Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
The innocence of the Cylons is debatable, especially since there are 5 models we know NOTHING about. For all we know, they are, in fact, innocent.
The Cylons are quite aware of what they are doing, as evidenced by their decision to (temporarily) stop. So I don't see how you can suppose they might be innocent.
Although ... suppose they are so intellectually advanced that humans cannot understand them. If a human destroys an ant hill, or obliterates a disease, is it genocide? Perhaps to the Cylons the humans are ants ...
And as for calling something a race or not...well, again, there is obviously a line somewhere. Cylons are created, yes, but they seem to procreate, even if its not in the same form as humans. Hell, they survived for 50 years without any humans, so they seem to have the process of living down just fine.
And that's the thing, they are ALIVE. We know that. They go to great lengths to BE alive and to prove it. Maybe its not in the same sense as for humans, but why should it be? Is all life exactly the same?
I think this is the essence of the debate that BSG proposes -- what is the equal of humankind? What deserves recognition as a people/species/sentient race? Can Cylons as mechanical creations, or the descendents of mechanical creations, be the equal of humanity. Humanity has destroyed entire species, both intentionally and unintentionally. Is this genocide? Certainly no one blinks an eye at the total and utter eradication of disease virii that represent a threat to humanity. How can this be right for a virus, yet wrong for Cylons?
The other thing that I see as a big thing against genocide is roughly along the same lines as what Helo said. The Cylons are bad, yes. But is turnabout really fair play? Does one species really have any right at all to destroy another? The Cylons thought so, obviously, and Roslin does, too...but does this make the humans as bad as the Cylons? THAT, I think, is the question being posed in this episodes.
Are we really that different?
Does it matter? Humanity becomes the Cylons, who are themselves trying to replace humanity?
BSG is pursued by an implacable foe, that has destroyed all but the remaining 40k of the human race (in theory). There is no evidence that the Cylons will stop short of utter annihilation of humanity. BSG can run, but it can't hide: if it finds Earth, then what? The Cylons destroy Earth. End of story -- the virus has been eliminated.
The key question in my mind to assessing the right of the situation is not whether genocide is right or wrong -- that's the secondary question -- but what ethical or moral model applies in this sort of "all or nothing" situation. What is moral? You can take the Heinleinian argument that what is moral is that which most contributes to the survival of the species -- in which case Cylon genocide is a moral imperative. (Now, admittedly, that's a Neo-fascist moralism taken from Starship Troopers, YMMV. But I think it's a worthy point to consider). Consider more traditional ethical models:
1. Kants Deontological model. What is the rule or obligation which applies? Does it prohibit the action? In this case, the human law against genocide would forbid the action ... but they can change the law.
2. Consequentialism. What will produce the greatest good? Tough to argue this one because it's easy to drift into model #3, and you can't predict the future. Perhaps from an objective standpoint a Cylon victory and elimination of the human race produces the greatest good -- Cylon genocide is therefore an ethically wrong choice. On the other hand, the Cylon genocidal tendencies can be seen as inherently evil, so stopping them by eliminating the Cylons produces the greatest good ... point to genocide.
3. Situational Ethics. There are no absolute values -- considering the situation, what is the motivation for the action, and is it good? This argues strongly in favor of genocide -- from the human point of view, guaranteeing the survival of the human race is the ultimate form of good.
4. Virtue Ethics (Plato/Aristotle) - what choice most reflects the decision of a person of great character? This clearly argues against the genocidal decision.
I'm of the mind that all ethical models are equally valid, at least as long as there isn't a "higher moral authority" waiting around the corner to enforce a particular ethical model -- and religious discussion aside, there doesn't appear to be one in the case of Cylons v. Humanity. Considering the four models above, I assess an equal case for and against, but would argue that the situational case for survival of the species takes precedence. The virtue moralist will have a tough time making his case when the Cylons nuke his escape capsule.
To reframe the argument -- the Cylons are an implacable foe that have human form. If they did not -- were they Fritz Leiber's Berserkers or the smallpox/AIDS/ebola virus, both equally capable of eliminating the entire human race -- would there be the same moral objection about eliminating them? In the BSG universe, I'd argue it's hard to be pro-smallpox vaccine and anti-Cylon genocide at the same time. Both represent a threat to the existence of humanity (and smallpox a lesser one, given that in can be prevented).
