
Creating the Innocent Killer (2009) - mlevental
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm
======
gmueckl
Ender's Game is an interesting story. If we were to simplify the scenario to a
lab, in which a monkey gets trained to play an abstract game to get food, the
resolution is trivial: if soneone wired the game to act as a trigger for an A
bomb under the enemy's capital, hoping to blame the monkey for pushing the
final button, they would clearly be in the wrong. The monkey would not be
capable of understanding his choice or his actions. The moral responsibility
and guilt lies entirely with the people planning and executing that plan.

Ender is different: he knows about the war. He knows that he is being trained
to fight in it. His fighting game gets ultimately wired up the the actual
battlefield. The book is actually surprisingly ambivalent on whether Ender
truely believes that this is still a simulation or something else. And when he
is presented with the trigger (the MD device) he decides to press it. If I
remember, he even kills half of his own fleet with that thing just because he
does not see any other way to win.

I don't quite buy that Ender is complete innocence in this. He was trained to
command these battles and knew what consequences his decisions have. Yet he
makes the conscious decision to act as an intelligent being who is
fundamentally able to decide otherwise if he wanted to. The alternative is set
up to have terrible consequences, but it exists and Ender understands it. And
the most damning aspect of all in my opinion is that Ender seems to suspect
that it is not just a simulation anymore. Yet he continues as he always has.

~~~
close04
Then again understanding your choices and actions relies heavily on being
aware of their consequences. So a soldier trained to kill cannot be judged by
what he does in a simulation (or what they believe to be one). The
consequences of your actions are what really define them.

So an Ender playing in a simulation is no different from a monkey being taught
to press a button. One of them doesn't know why it's doing that and can't
fathom the consequences but there's a reward at the end, the other concludes
there are no real consequences but there's a reward at the end. He has not yet
been faced with the real situation so it's impossible to to decide whether he
would act the same way or not.

~~~
ben509
Speaking as a veteran and someone who was in an OPFOR unit, we trained in
"simulations" as close as possible to the way we fight.

> So a soldier trained to kill cannot be judged by what he does in a
> simulation (or what they believe to be one).

Interestingly, EXROE (exercise rules of engagement) violations are subject to
article 15 non-judicial punishment, so they are judged by what they do in a
simulation in the US military.

Our simulations are more realistic than the ones depicted in Ender's game,
which were pretty strange looking back at it. In ours, you're in full kit,
you're carrying your service weapon with a MILES laser attached and a blank
fire adapter, there are helicopters flying overhead, and we have villages with
imams and such, etc. And there are consequences... if the OPFOR wins the town
will go "red" and demonstrations will break out, if BLUFOR wins the town goes
"blue" and OPFOR is forced to leave.

The big misconception people have is there are all these instant decisions you
have to make or ironclad orders that have to be executed in an instant. The
reality is you're responsible for what you shoot at, and that's why you're
trained in target identification to know what you're shooting at. You
generally don't want to be in a tactical situation where you have to make
instant decisions; that's why the cordon and search tactics (similar to SWAT
tactics) were so controversial precisely because going room to room meant
making large numbers of snap decisions. The results were pretty predictable.

Well developed rules of engagement and tactics help soldiers distinguish
clearly between enemy combatants, friendlies and civilians. For example, if
you are defending a gate, you're going to set up barriers to slow vehicles
down so you have plenty of time to identify a potential VBIED. And you mark
out different zones... this is where you flash lights, this is where you fire
a warning shot, and if they get past this point you open up.

~~~
close04
That's not the kind of sim I was thinking about. That's the case because the
rules of your sim precisely replicate real life and that's the _only_ point of
it. You're "playing" following a very clear rule book. And they are still
"real life", you are not put in a virtual training/learning environment where
you write the rule book and can expect mistakes to have 0 consequences.

The question was what if the simulation didn't replicate real life? What if
you were expected or requested to do _more_ by being told "it's a simulation
and your ONLY goal is to win". It's GTA, Counter Strike, StarCraft, etc. Would
knowing the person you just ran over while trying to win is a real person that
just died or that you sent a real squad of marines to die so you can save one
tank change your decisions? It's a hypothetical exercise, just like the Ender
story.

My main point is that even if you're trained to kill in real life the
decisions you take in a sim with "fictitious" rules and scenarios can't be
considered a breach of morality.

Anyway, there is no justice or real consequences even for mistakes made in
real life when it comes to the military. As evidence stands the mountain of
innocent civilian victims. And to make the parallel with real life, Ender is
not a soldier, he's a general. And just like in real life a decision that
costs millions of lives on any side can still be rewarded with medals, glory,
fame, as long as you're on the winning side.

------
talltimtom
Interesting read. It seems very connected to the constant trope in American
movies of “Hero capture villain but is good so doesn’t kill him.... but
villain grabs for gun/knife/nuclear device, forcing hero to kill him”

I always feel it’s such a horrible deux ex machima. As a writer, if you want
the villain to die have the hero bear the responsibility of the act, don’t
just try to morally whitewash it by engineering the circumstances.

Also obligatory: Han shot first!

~~~
loup-vaillant
Even Han was kinda forced to shoot Greedo. Greedo said in no uncertain terms
that he'd kill Han, and judging by the rest of the scene, it's fair to assume
Greedo would have pulled the trigger on the spot, and walked away without
anyone disturbing him. If Han didn't shot first, he'd be dead. That's close
enough to self defence that Han can still have the sympathy of the public.

Actually bearing the responsibility of the murder would have Han kill Greedo
for something Greedo _did_. It would at least mean Han initiating hostilities.

~~~
LordKano
_Even Han was kinda forced to shoot Greedo. Greedo said in no uncertain terms
that he 'd kill Han_

I'm going to have to vigorously disagree with you. You must have only seen the
Special Edition. Greedo makes it clear that he plans to take Han back to
Jabba. He says "You can tell that to Jabba. He may only take your ship."

Greedo didn't intent to murder Han. He was just after a bounty. Han killed
Greedo to avoid apprehension and buy enough time to get the money to pay off
Jabba.

------
glitchc
I find this essay to be poorly written and wrongly positioned. Ender is an
anti-hero. He does what he has to because he is a useful tool, a pawn in the
hands of people more powerful than him. His motivations are intertwined with
theirs because he is fighting to save the same people they are (for him it's
his sister Valentine really).

The author of the essay recognizes Ender's portrayal of guilt, but suggests
that Card wipes the slate clean with every incident. It is quite the opposite.
Much of Ender's internal monologue is about him trying and failing to
rationalize his actions. He has nightmares. "Speaker For The Dead" and
"Xenocide" are about Ender struggling to come to terms with his xenocide,
inventing new ways of assuaging that guilt. It is telling that Ender carries
his burden for roughly a millenia (a terrible punishment), and only <spoiler
alert> sacrificing himself allows some manner of redemption. He also <spoiler
alert> saves the buggers after all. No one except Ender knows the location of
the young queen's cocoon. He could easily let her be captured or killed, yet
deliberately places her in a secluded part of the galaxy where she can grow
and repopulate. These are the actions of an ethical human being, not an
amoral, cold-blooded killer.

Good sci-fi builds on moral conflicts in present-day society. Card is keenly
aware of this. Ender's Game is an unrealistic sympathy card? The pilots of the
Enola Gay pushed a button and instantly exterminated 50,000 people. How do
they feel about this? Does one think it was just another day at the office for
them? Just another flight? We have drone pilots kill people daily. They burn
out after a few years, suffer from PTSD. Xenocide has a very tense scene where
the Admiral <spoiler> has to make an Ender-like decision. People like Ender
exist because we as a society demand that they exist. That's ultimately Card's
moral message.

~~~
mcguire
Doesn't Ender continue to attack Stilson and Bonzo after they are down? Are we
to assume that he doesn't know that doing such a thing could be lethal?

If I remember correctly, isn't the military surprised that Ender uses the
super-bomb against the bugger's _planet_?

By the way, what's your take on "Cold Equations?"

~~~
glitchc
Ender is a survivalist. It's a character trait some people have. He never
starts fights, but he finishes them. It is prudent defensive strategy in
conflict to neutralize the source in some permanent fashion, just to ensure
that this source will never threaten you again. Stilson and Bonzo could have
stopped the fight at any time by conceding, giving up, walking away, showing
remorse. They don't. They fight till the end. In both cases, Ender finishes
the fight, but doesn't know how his opponent fared. It's third-party accounts
and glimpses of evidence that hint at the truth, and Card makes more hints
available to the reader (through third-party conversations) than what Ender is
exposed to.

Regarding surprise: Remember that Ender is not just chosen for his
intelligence, but also his temperament. Peter and Valentine are just as smart,
Peter probably the smartest out of the three. Graff and the others are banking
on Ender's survivalist trait to do the hard things when necessary, make the
decisions that no one else had the courage to make.

In the final battle, Ender's rationale was this: The yield of the MD device
was too low to take the bugger fleet down by itself. The hive knew about the
MD device and was countering his actions by constant movements to minimize
local clustering. The only option was to target the planet to yield a large
enough cascade. Even then, he didn't know if it would be large enough to take
out the entire enemy fleet. In the end, it was large enough to destroy half
the human fleet as well. He was taking a calculated risk. It was cold,
ruthless and utterly unexpected. Even the Hive Queen, who was in touch with
his thoughts on and off, didn't think he would do it. When she realizes his
true intentions, she tries her best to block his path, throwing ships directly
in the line of fire. It was a very high-risk strategy. He could have run out
of ships before he got close enough for instance.

The real question is: Would he do it again if placed in the exact same
situation with the exact same facts and resources at his disposal? Ender
spends the rest of the series struggling with that very question. Ultimately,
he comes to realize that, yes, he would do it all over again if he had to.

Thank you for the recommendation on "Cold Equations". Haven't read it, will
happily take a look. Hopefully my local library has a copy.

~~~
jarcane
_Ender is a survivalist. It 's a character trait some people have. He never
starts fights, but he finishes them. It is prudent defensive strategy in
conflict to neutralize the source in some permanent fashion, just to ensure
that this source will never threaten you again. Stilson and Bonzo could have
stopped the fight at any time by conceding, giving up, walking away, showing
remorse. They don't. They fight till the end._

Did you actually read the whole essay? The author makes exactly this point
about Ender's mindset. The only thing you seem to be disagreeing on is whether
it's a good one.

~~~
glitchc
I did read the essay. The author's portrayal of Ender winning at any cost is
correct. But the rest is not. Ender feels remorse (the author doesn't
acknowledge it much). Rather, the author says that Card lets Ender get away
with it in the universe he's created. That's not what happens either.

------
HONEST_ANNIE
Here is a slight modification to consider: Skin in the game.

If we separate motivation and act as completely as Card suggests, we should
separate motivation and personal consequences completely as well.

This would effectively prevent hypocrites and those without pure motivation
rationalizing their actions.

Card's 'martial philosophy' mixes western legal tradition (where intention is
important) and martial tradition and moral philosophy in a way that perverts
both.

Hyrum Graff and bunch of others should have been tried, convicted and
executed. Give them hero's funeral by all means. They should have gone into
the project knowing for sure that nobody of them will come out of it alive.
Horrible act for good reasons should should always be a personal sacrifice.

In many old classical stories in the Chinese and other East Asian cultures the
same dilemma would be solved just like this. True warrior should have no
desire to kill and should act selflessly. But he should face the consequences
under strict legalist tradition (Faija).

------
scotty79
> though he ultimately takes on guilt for the extermination of the alien
> buggers, his assuming this guilt is a gratuitous act

> ...

> In this Card argues that the morality of an act is based solely on the
> intentions of the person acting.

This book must be a mirror where different people see different things.

For me, morally, it was a tale about how some deeds are so horrible, that no
matter what your motivations or circumstances were they can never be good. You
saved humanity? Doesn't matter if you exterminated entire intelligent species
for that. You were decieved to do that? Still doesn't matter.

It resonated with me, an atheist, very strongly that some evils while might be
forgiven by some people for some time, they can never be "absolved".

For me on personal level such unabsolvable deed is killing. By extension I
think that army won't be moral untill each soldier comming back from the war
is ready to be tried and sentenced for each life he took. We are probably
closer to singuarity than to morality defined like that.

~~~
Ntrails
> You saved humanity? Doesn't matter if you exterminated entire intelligent
> species for that.

Do you truly believe that? In a war of extinction you feel the moral choice is
to allow humanity to be exterminated instead?

Surely inaction is just as morally unjust as action? I do not believe that
_not_ switching the train onto the track which doesn't kill someone is
different from switching it onto a track which does.

In more direct terms I, for one, would feel no guilt killing to save my own
life from an aggressor, or to save those of my family/friends.

~~~
scotty79
> In a war of extinction you feel the moral choice is to allow humanity to be
> exterminated instead?

Moral choice is not always the right choice. The fact that the choice is right
or logical doesn't make it moral.

> Surely inaction is just as morally unjust as action?

Nothing sure about that. For example in case of "trolley problem" I would not
reroute the trolley so that 1 person dies instead of five because I believe
that saving people is optional, but not killing them is mandatory. Or I would
reroute the trolley accepting that even though it might be correct it was
immoral.

> In more direct terms I, for one, would feel no guilt killing to save my own
> life from an aggressor, or to save those of my family/friends.

I would feel the guilt if I killed someone.

~~~
LordKano
I don't believe that the dilemma faced by Ender is akin to the traditional
trolley problem. It's not a straight utilitarian choice of 1 innocent or 5
innocents die based on your decision to act or not.

Namely, the people on the trolley have intentionally run down innocents in the
past and to the best of your knowledge, they are doing so again.

You have the choice to do nothing and allow those innocents to be killed or to
throw the switch and kill those whom are trying to kill the innocents.

~~~
scotty79
If you are seeking analogy he had a trolley problem where 5 people are his
family and on the other track there is a guy who commited serious crime, maybe
killing, some believe it was even a murder. Everyone around agrees he should
make every effort possible to throw the switch while he himself is led to
believe that he's throwing training switch and even after throwing real switch
the bad guy will rather be maimed not killed.

Still, he throws the switch, it was the real switch, guy is killed and
eventually it turns out his offence was an accident and if left alone the
trolley wouldn't kill 5 people.

Ender is guilty of killng a guy even though what he did was perfectly
reasonable considering circumstances.

~~~
LordKano
The occupants of the trolley had intentionally run over many people in the
past. Ender had reason to believe that they intended to do so again.

We only have the word of the dormant hive queen that they didn't intend to
again.

(Spoiler Alert) In the Shadow series, it's revealed that the hive queen lied
to Ender about some things. The formic males struck a deal with Bean's
children to keep Ender from finding out.

Even if he had known, his actions were still just.

------
mcguire
_“The only way to end things completely…” Ender thinks, “was to hurt Bonzo
enough that his fear was stronger than his hate”_

It's interesting to think of this in terms of global politics, and the
"fearing for his life" defense of shootings in the US. A pushes B down in a
parking lot; A could kill B in hand-to-hand combat; therefore B is justified.

In historical terms, humanity seems incredibly benevolent, even when engaged
in total war.

------
jstanley
I've never read Ender's Game but I enjoyed this essay very much and recommend
reading it. It's as much an essay on morality as it is a book review.

~~~
glitchc
I highly recommend the book itself. It is far deeper and more nuanced than the
essay.

------
stone-monkey
Here's another good take on the moral killer in Ender's Game:

[http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/13/13857.html](http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/13/13857.html)

------
AllegedAlec
The essay doesn't sit right with me to be honest. The author seems to
attribute no small amount of intentional malice on Card's part, which their
talk of manipulation of the readers, and whatnot. Malice which, at least I
believe, isn't truly present (at least in this; OCS has some pretty outlandish
believes).

To me, the core tenet of OCS' philosophy in the book is something along the
lines of the following:

\- the preservation of society comes before the preservation of the individual

\- Sometimes, in order to preserve society, harm must be done to an individual

\- The people causing this harm are not morally bad for causing it; since they
do it in the pursuit of a more important goal

You can agree with it or not, but I feel it's in bad taste to compare this to
someone abusing people because they were abused in the past.

~~~
jacobush
Interesting - I didn't read malice into it at all.

~~~
AllegedAlec
Maybe malice is the wrong word, but I feel that the essay strongly implies
that the author believes that the morality outlined by OCS is reprehensible,
and that OCS is actively guiding the readers to agree with his morality by
constructing a situation in which it seems reasonable.

~~~
ikeboy
It cites Card himself which supports that, though:

>Despite their similar public image, however, every other element of Ender’s
story is designed to show that in his case the image is not reality—he is not
like Hitler or Stalin, exactly the opposite of what Radford claims.

Card's clearly trying to get people to agree with him that Ender is an
"innocent killer", based solely on this quote.

------
ikeboy
(2004)

~~~
jacobush
Postscript 2009

------
deew9023
This is just another "if you kill your enemies they win" idiocy.

~~~
duckerude
Are you sure? I think this essay asks whether Ender is responsible for the
things he did, not whether the things he did are bad. The books agree that
they're bad, but they carefully place the responsibility outside Ender.

~~~
merpnderp
I don't recall the first book stating what he did was bad. The war was
presented as the survival of the human species being at stake from an
unrelenting murderous alien species.

