BattleStar Galactica:Season 3.0--11/10/06--Arc 6

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

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 ...

You know, ever since New Caprica, I think the Cylon perspective has been a little more clear. But, to me, it seems to show that the Cylons THINK they understand humanity, but they DON'T. They went to New Caprica to attempt to 'help', but it turned into something completely different, and they just couldn't understand why the humans had a problem with any of it. The understanding of that was completely beyond them.

Now, I'm not sure its a whole ant thing with how the Cylons see the humans, but its quite clear they just plain don't understand things as well as they've convinced themselves they do. (Which is, intersetingly enough, a very human quality.)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The Cylons are not a virus, not a bacteria, and as we have learned over two and a half seasons, not simple machine intelligences. They are sentient, and this makes them special, too.

How do we know they're sentient and not simply machines with extremely advanced programming? Is a Turing machine sentient? The cognitive scientist's argument that a Turing machine is sentient is based in the assumption that the individual interacting with the Turing machine doesn't realize he's interacting with a machine. In this case, we know we're interacting with machines.

 

[Fast Learner]

We only know we're interacting with machines because we know the origin of the species, making a conceptual overall Turing test impossible. The test does not fail because you can't do it.

Did the BSG crew know Sharon was a machine for the years she was training with them? No. Turing test passed. D'Anna while she was interviewing them? No. Turing test passed. Six while Baltar was bedding her every day on Caprica? No. Turing test passed.

On knowing whether they're sentient or not, including whether an AI is sentient, we have no solid definition for it as humans, making it damned hard to logically point out. Self-awareness? Check. Have feelings? Check. Conscious? Well, again, no good definition.

In the end it's like art or porn or a thousand other subjective but no-less-valid things: we know it when we see it. If you met a "skin-job" Cylon and hadn't been told it was a machine, you'd have absolutely no problem judging it to be sentient.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, I think this is the last time I'll stop by a BSG thread here. Obviously, this wasn't and isn't everyone's opinion, but still. Seems like RDM's failure as a dramatist here was to assume that viewers would have a reflexive revulsion at the thought of genocide.

The problem with the dramatic narrative is that destroying a collection of out of control machines is not genocide. The cylons are entirely unsympathetic, and to boot, they are merely machines that have delusions of grandeur. There is no moral equivalence here. The cylons are like a cockroach infestation that should be exterminated as expeditiously as possible.

 

[Storm Raven]

Ideally it will be resolved with the humans and the cylons finding a way to peacefully coexist. We've already seen the cylon philosophy mutate a great deal, repeatedly. There's no reason to believe that they'll never change.

The cylons are responsible for the mass murder of billions of humans, including the families and loved ones of just about every surviving human. But the "ideal situation" is for humans to learn to live peacefully with these worthless monstrosities. Right.

The ideal situation is for all cylons to be exterminated, like the vermin they truly are. The possibility that they are sentient only makes their crimes worse, not better. And means that they morally deserve to be anhiliated to the last toaster.

Of course, the episode falls entirely apart when you consider that the "deadly virus" is a common cold. If that is true, why did the cylons not fall deathly ill when they infiltrated human society initially?

But, leaving aside the huge plot hole, count me as being entirely on the side of those who would eliminate the cylons (and I won't say "kill", because terminating a cylon isn't killing something, it is destroying a malfunctioning machine) to the very last one. Orchestrating the death of billions of humans earns you a ticket to extinction. No ifs, ands, or buts. There is no argument the cylons can make that would change this.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You know, ever since New Caprica, I think the Cylon perspective has been a little more clear. But, to me, it seems to show that the Cylons THINK they understand humanity, but they DON'T. They went to New Caprica to attempt to 'help', but it turned into something completely different, and they just couldn't understand why the humans had a problem with any of it. The understanding of that was completely beyond them.

I'm reminded of Agent Smith's rant from Matrix: "We build the perfect human world, where everyone was happy and no one suffered. It failed miserably ... humans want to suffer."

Perhaps the Cylons are expecting humans to want and appreciate a Cylon-emposed utopia. Ungrateful buggers, those humans.

 

[Fast Learner]

The Cylons are immature. They've only been in existence as a sentience for, what, 40 years?

Uplift, man, uplift.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Of course, the episode falls entirely apart when you consider that the "deadly virus" is a common cold. If that is true, why did the cylons not fall deathly ill when they infiltrated human society initially?

Humans have developed an immunity to the Virus, meaning that their immune system destroys it. The Virus went extinct centuries ago.

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 ...



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?



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).

Interesting post about the different ethical models, but the last paragraph has one weakness (in my view):

Smallpox/AIDS/Ebola shows no signs of sentience/sapience. Cylons do. That makes a great difference, at least to me. (You could probably construct a scenario in where any of these viruses somehow lead to the creation of a new sentient species, meaning that destroying the viruses could mean committing genocide, too. But this might be going a bit to far)

So, can we decide whether one species is morally/ethical superior? If that would be the case, we could justify some kind of genocide.

But one important point is missing here - we all see it as a "us vs. them" that can't be changed. But the truth is that the Galactica-Universe already has 14 habitable planets. In theory, Cylons and Humans had enough space to live together. They don't have to destroy each other. They just need to find a way to make living together possible. If failed on New Caprica, but that doesn't mean such a cooperation is impossible. It just means that both sides have to work harder.
(This can even be applied to the smallpox/ebola/AIDS-examples - we don't have to destroy the viruses - if we find a way to survive their effects and/or find a suitable host for them that wouldn't lead to a "genocide". Human and Virus could live together without having to destroy each other)

Helos actions might seem debatable in a purely "either us-or-them"-scenario, but he and Athena are the best example of a working Cylon-Human relationship that is not based on hatred and desire for mutual destruction.
In this view, Helo and Athena are actually the moral and ethical role-models for both races.

 

[Spatula]

Of course, the episode falls entirely apart when you consider that the "deadly virus" is a common cold. If that is true, why did the cylons not fall deathly ill when they infiltrated human society initially?

It was a particular virus that humans developed an immunity to hundreds of years ago.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

In this episode the moral quandary and its resolution were handled somewhat ineptly by a show that normally produces to-notch entertainment. It was handled in a rather pat and too easy manner.

Putting the issue of the show in another manner, if the only way to preserve human existence would be to engage in something you knew to be a sin, a sin that was not ameliorated by the fact committing it preserved humanity, would you be capable of committing that sin?

Genocide is a sin.

However, it is also in all reasonable rational probability the only way to preserve humanity with in the context of BSG.

However, owing to a failure of clarity of moral vision – a failure that masks itself as virtue – on the part of Helo, the sin was not committed. In not committing that sin, there will be further suffering, when the Cylon attack and kill people in the future. Facilitating suffering for the sake of vanity is itself a sin.