Excession help
Graham Borland
I am stuck part-way through Excession, and I'm hoping someone can help
me. I am having trouble following the ship-to-ship conversations. In
particular, the following conversations are bothering me:
[spoiler warning]
Chapter 3, Section IV
=====================
This is where Ulver Seich is shown the conversation between the Fate
Amenable To Change and the Ethics Gradient, in which the FATC first
reports discovering the excession.
A group of ships start discussing this, and get fed up with the Wisdom
Like Silence so most of them form a new group without it. In the first
part of this conversation (with the Wisdom Like Silence present) there
is a contribution from the Ethics Gradient which in enclosed in curly
brackets. Are the curly brackets supposed to have any significance?
When the group is reconvened without the Wisdom Like Silence, it names
itself the Interesting Times Gang, I think. They then discuss inviting
the Fate Amenable To Change and the Ethics Gradient into the
Gang... but surely the Ethics Gradient is already in the Gang, because
of its previous contribution to the conversation? It is made clear
that the new group consists of all the ships that were in the first
group with the exception of the Wisdom Like Silence.
What's going on here? I'm confused. The subsequent explanation to
Ulver Seich does not answer my question.
Chapter 5, Section II
=====================
The Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival tells the Shoot Them Later
that it thinks some other ships are behaving strangely and might be
part of a conspiracy. The Shoot Them Later tries to reassure The
Anticipation... that everything's OK and some strange behaviour is to
be expected when an excession is discovered.
Then, in a separate conversation, the Shoot Them Later discusses this
exchange with the Serious Callers Only. Shoot Them Later says "I still
think it could be one of them". I'm guessing that the Shoot Them Later
and the Serious Callers Only are involved in one conspiracy, and they
suspect that the Anticipation... is involved in another rival
conspiracy. Am I right?
But then the Shoot Them Later says it's not even sure if there is a
conspiracy at all... so why did the Serious Callers Only just say "And
I still think you should let it in with us"?
So, one ship thinks there's a conspiracy (or *pretends* it thinks
there's a conspiracy), and two other ships think *it* is part of a
conspiracy too, but probably a different conspiracy from the first
one. I think I am going insane trying to follow this.
I have paid Iain M. Banks my money to have a story told to me. I
wasn't expecting to have to do his job for him and struggle to work
out for myself what the hell is actually *happening*. Why is it all so
confusing? :-(
Am I worrying too much about irrelevant details? Should I just press
on regardless, and hope that everything will become clear in the end?
At the moment I am struggling to find the motivation to continue
reading this book, since I seem to be unable to follow the
storyline. :-(
--
Graham Borland Picsel Technologies Ltd
gra...@picsel.com Glasgow, Scotland
Rich Puchalsky
Graham Borland <gra...@picsel.com> wrote in message
news:86bssyo...@picsel.com...
>
> [spoiler warning]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chapter 3, Section IV
> =====================
>
> This is where Ulver Seich is shown the conversation between the Fate
> Amenable To Change and the Ethics Gradient, in which the FATC first
> reports discovering the excession.
>
> A group of ships start discussing this, and get fed up with the Wisdom
> Like Silence so most of them form a new group without it. In the first
> part of this conversation (with the Wisdom Like Silence present) there
> is a contribution from the Ethics Gradient which in enclosed in curly
> brackets. Are the curly brackets supposed to have any significance?
The Ethics Gradient is the GSV (mothership) for the ship that actually made
contact, the GCU FAte Amenable to Change. Its comment in curly brackets is
its report that it detected a warp-wake signature in the area, which it sent
to the group -- or to whatever group was handling the matter -- but it can't
see the group's reply, or any of the group's discussion. It submitted a
report, but it's not really participating in the decision making at this
point.
>
> When the group is reconvened without the Wisdom Like Silence, it names
> itself the Interesting Times Gang, I think.
Renames itself -- the Interesting Times Gang existed before, and now it's
re-forming. The name comes from the Chinese phrase "May you live in
interesting times", which is used as a curse; i.e. boring times are safe,
interesting ones are dangerous.
> They then discuss inviting
> the Fate Amenable To Change and the Ethics Gradient into the
> Gang... but surely the Ethics Gradient is already in the Gang, because
> of its previous contribution to the conversation? It is made clear
> that the new group consists of all the ships that were in the first
> group with the exception of the Wisdom Like Silence.
Here's what happened: the group started out drawn from SC ships on duty,
some of which were ITG. They quickly invited the rest of the ITG to take
part. Wisdom Like Silence got pissed off at this, so they excluded it. At
this point the group consists of the ITG, plus (probably) a few more SC
ships who are willing to play along. They then discuss inviting in the FATC
and Ethics Gradient, the two ships who are actually close to the Excession.
> Chapter 5, Section II
> =====================
>
> The Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival tells the Shoot Them Later
> that it thinks some other ships are behaving strangely and might be
> part of a conspiracy. The Shoot Them Later tries to reassure The
> Anticipation... that everything's OK and some strange behaviour is to
> be expected when an excession is discovered.
>
> Then, in a separate conversation, the Shoot Them Later discusses this
> exchange with the Serious Callers Only. Shoot Them Later says "I still
> think it could be one of them". I'm guessing that the Shoot Them Later
> and the Serious Callers Only are involved in one conspiracy, and they
> suspect that the Anticipation... is involved in another rival
> conspiracy. Am I right?
This is a bit complicated, but:
1. Part of the ITG is in a conspiracy. But those outside the conspiracy --
even those within the ITG but not in the conspiracy -- don't know who is in
it, or even if there is one.
2. The Shoot Them Later and Serious Callers Only are not in the conspiracy.
They suspect that there is one, however. So they have formed their own
counter-conspiracy of two to unearth and oppose it.
3. The Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival (the ANTA for short)
independently suspects a conspiracy, and approaches the Shoot Them Later
about it. Now the Shoot Them Later has a problem. If the ANTA is being
honest, it would be helpful to invite it into the counter-conspiracy.
However, it's also possible that the ANTA is actually a member of the
conspiracy, and is trying to spy on the counter-conspiracy by pretending to
join it. The Shoot Them Later decides to be paranoid and that the second
possibility would be too damaging to risk, so it blandly denies that it
suspects anything.
4. This denial by the Shoot Them Later would remove suspicion from the
Shoot Them Later if the ANTA was really in the conspiracy. However, it
would make the ANTA suspect that the Shoot Them Later is in the conspiracy
if the ANTA wasn't in the conspiracy. The Serious Callers Only thinks the
second is more likely to be the case. Of course, at this point none of the
ships involved are really sure that a conspiracy exists at all.
>
> I have paid Iain M. Banks my money to have a story told to me. I
> wasn't expecting to have to do his job for him and struggle to work
> out for myself what the hell is actually *happening*. Why is it all so
> confusing? :-(
>
Because Banks is trying to describe what kinds of plots are carried out by
entities that are supposed to be millions of times smarter than an average
human being. Therefore, the plotting has to sound complex, but be
understandable, at least when it is explained to Ulver. I don't think Banks
really succeeds, because he doesn't make the plotting complex enough; once
the plan of the ITG is understood, later in the book, it turns out to be a
rather simple one and I think they could have done much better if they were
all that smart.
_Excession_ is not one of Banks' best Culture books. But it's worth
reading, especially if you've gotten this far through it.
Scott Beeler
>I am stuck part-way through Excession, and I'm hoping someone can help
>me. I am having trouble following the ship-to-ship conversations. In
>particular, the following conversations are bothering me:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[spoiler warning]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Chapter 3, Section IV
>=====================
>
>This is where Ulver Seich is shown the conversation between the Fate
>Amenable To Change and the Ethics Gradient, in which the FATC first
>reports discovering the excession.
>
>A group of ships start discussing this, and get fed up with the Wisdom
>Like Silence so most of them form a new group without it. In the first
>part of this conversation (with the Wisdom Like Silence present) there
>is a contribution from the Ethics Gradient which in enclosed in curly
>brackets. Are the curly brackets supposed to have any significance?
Perhaps they mean that it's not actually in the discussion group, that
this message was just an update from the Excession site being
forwarded into the group, presumably by the Wisdom Like Silence as
leader. (Which would fit the other problem below...)
>When the group is reconvened without the Wisdom Like Silence, it names
>itself the Interesting Times Gang, I think. They then discuss inviting
>the Fate Amenable To Change and the Ethics Gradient into the
>Gang... but surely the Ethics Gradient is already in the Gang, because
>of its previous contribution to the conversation? It is made clear
>that the new group consists of all the ships that were in the first
>group with the exception of the Wisdom Like Silence.
The drone explains much of it to Ulver right after showing her the
group conversation. It starts out as an official group with Wisdom
Like Silence acting as moderator. Then, attracted by the excitement
of the Excession event, this unofficial cabal called the Interesting
Times Group (including some really Big-Name long-gone ships) takes
over the group and kicks the WLS out.
>Chapter 5, Section II
>=====================
>
>The Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival tells the Shoot Them Later
>that it thinks some other ships are behaving strangely and might be
>part of a conspiracy. The Shoot Them Later tries to reassure The
>Anticipation... that everything's OK and some strange behaviour is to
>be expected when an excession is discovered.
>
>Then, in a separate conversation, the Shoot Them Later discusses this
>exchange with the Serious Callers Only. Shoot Them Later says "I still
>think it could be one of them". I'm guessing that the Shoot Them Later
>and the Serious Callers Only are involved in one conspiracy, and they
>suspect that the Anticipation... is involved in another rival
>conspiracy. Am I right?
>
>But then the Shoot Them Later says it's not even sure if there is a
>conspiracy at all... so why did the Serious Callers Only just say "And
>I still think you should let it in with us"?
The Shoot Them Later and Serious Callers Only think there *might* be
some sort of conspiracy going on. They don't know for sure though, or
what exactly, or what they should do about it. So the STL wants to
lay low and not give anything away to the AoaNLA, since the STL thinks
it could be part of this (possible) conspiracy. The SCO thinks that
the STL playing coy could just make the AoaNLA suspicious, and that
they ought to tell it of their thoughts to gain its trust. But they
decide to just stay low and let the AoaNLA investigate on its own;
that way if it's being truthful they might learn something, but if
it's actually a part of the conspiracy it can't lure them out.
>I have paid Iain M. Banks my money to have a story told to me. I
>wasn't expecting to have to do his job for him and struggle to work
>out for myself what the hell is actually *happening*. Why is it all so
>confusing? :-(
>
>Am I worrying too much about irrelevant details? Should I just press
>on regardless, and hope that everything will become clear in the end?
>At the moment I am struggling to find the motivation to continue
>reading this book, since I seem to be unable to follow the
>storyline. :-(
Press on. Flip back to refresh your memory if you need (I certainly
needed to do that a good bit). It's complicated to follow, with the
many different plot threads and lots of characters. I think the
confusion is somewhat intentional, to produce the murky spy-type
atmosphere. Maybe Banks overdid it a bit. But I was able to follow
the main plotlines through it, if not all the details.
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Steve Charlton
<rpuch...@mediaone.net> writes
>_Excession_ is not one of Banks' best Culture books.
>But it's worth
>reading, especially if you've gotten this far through it.
Yes, keep reading, then read it again a month or so later - you'll get a
lot more out of it. I don't particularly like Banks' jumping-all-over-
time plot lines. They add to the confusion and rarely help the story
along. The odd "Ah Ha!" moment towards the end of each novel isn't worth
the extra effort (IMHO). "Look to Windward" is a prime example of the
damage this causes.
--
Steve Charlton |There may be intelligent life on other planets
st...@gnirekoms.freeserve.co.uk |in the galaxy, but somebody, somewhere, had to
sdrawkcab=backwards |be first.
Carl Sagan (sadly missed)
Rich Puchalsky
news:zszB9LCP...@smokering.freeserve.co.uk...
> In article <LAqb6.95409$y9.18...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, Rich Puchalsky
> <rpuch...@mediaone.net> writes
> >_Excession_ is not one of Banks' best Culture books.
> I have to disagree with that. Excession *is* Banks' best Culture book.
Why?
I realize that opinions about which book is best are a matter of taste, but
I'd be interested in hearing you describe what you think is best about
_Excession_. I think that _Use of Weapons_ is his best work, because of its
formal structure, attention to detail, and strong characterization coupled
with a realistic disinclination to let you learn everything about the main
character -- in short, it's literary. I think that _Player of Games_ is
also better because it couples many of the things that Banks does well
(mystery style plot lines, strong social commentary) with a character who
actually changes through the course of the novel. Even _Consider Phlebas_
is better, I think, because even though it's basically a shoot-em-up it
still has the strong character of Horza in it and it has a certain energy
related to it being the first published Culture book. _Excession_, on the
other hand, has too many narrative characters, leading to shallow
characterization on all of them, and has lost a lot of the literary style in
favor of sci-fi style explication of what's going on.
Anyways, I'd be curious to hear what you like about the book.
Steve Charlton
Drones are main (or at least view point) characters. I like the
different personalities the Minds have. I like the pace of the story. I
like the described tech levels and capabilities (none of the "you have
to be in visual range to fire" trekie crap). I wouldn't say that *all*
of the characters were shallow, but some have to be when the book has
that many.
I didn't like UoW much because of the darkness, the evilness if you
will, of the main character and some of the other characters in it. Yes,
it may be very well written, but I don't like it. I've read it twice now
and it will be a while before I pick it up again (my copy of Excession
is falling apart).
Consider Phlebas is a good story, I'd place it second on my list of
favourite Culture novels, and third overall in Banks' novels. It was the
first Banks book I bought.
If you prefer a book because its "Literary", then you probably get more
out of reading books than I do, but I choose books I think I will like
for the sheer enjoyment of reading them. To me, there is no other reason
for reading a book.
Steve Charlton
<jade...@excite.com> writes
>Steve Charlton <st...@nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I like the style of the book. I like the fact that some ships' Minds and
>>Drones are main (or at least view point) characters. I like the
>>different personalities the Minds have. I like the pace of the story.
>
>curious story: it's almost an epistolary novel. Most of the important
>points get played out in letters between Minds. Nothing wrong with
>that, but the interludes with the human characters are pretty dull, and
>the novel doesn't really seem to hang together.
YMMustV
>
>>I didn't like UoW much because of the darkness, the evilness if you
>>will, of the main character and some of the other characters in it. Yes,
>>it may be very well written, but I don't like it. I've read it twice now
>>and it will be a while before I pick it up again (my copy of Excession
>>is falling apart).
>
>Hmmm. You need to get in touch with your dark side. Banks is a curious
>writer to read if you don't like reading about evil.
Erm No. Ian "M" Banks is a damn good writer and *some* of his characters
have a dark side and some are real bad. Most of his stories do not have
a happy ending. Excession is one of the few that does, that's another
reason I like it. I like CP and AaDB too, even with their endings.
>
>>If you prefer a book because its "Literary", then you probably get more
>>out of reading books than I do, but I choose books I think I will like
>>for the sheer enjoyment of reading them. To me, there is no other reason
>>for reading a book.
>
>There's pleasure, and then there's pleasure. I think it's condescending
>to say that people who think "literary" is a compliment are not getting
>pleasure out of reading these books.
Who said that? I didn't. Read what I posted again. Rich Puchalsky said
he liked UoW because it was literary. That doesn't mean he got less out
of Excession I did. I prefer Excession, he prefers UoW.
>Perhaps it's like the difference
>between a quick fuck and tantric sex, but it's pleasure nonetheless.
True, as long as it's not you being held down against your will while
somebody practices tantric sex on you .
Rich Puchalsky
> I like the style of the book. I like the fact that some ships' Minds and
> Drones are main (or at least view point) characters. I like the
> different personalities the Minds have. I like the pace of the story. I
> like the described tech levels and capabilities (none of the "you have
> to be in visual range to fire" trekie crap). I wouldn't say that *all*
> of the characters were shallow, but some have to be when the book has
> that many.
Yeah, that stuff is good. But the main characters just aren't as well drawn
as they could be if a few minor characters had gone from narrative to
non-narrative.
The pace of the story is a bit odd. But I'd say that it fits the idea of
the different parts of the story happening at astronomical distances from
each other, at different times. It does have that Victorian feel, as
someone else pointed out in a reply to this post, of people sending letters
to each other.
>
> I didn't like UoW much because of the darkness, the evilness if you
> will, of the main character and some of the other characters in it. Yes,
> it may be very well written, but I don't like it. I've read it twice now
> and it will be a while before I pick it up again (my copy of Excession
> is falling apart).
Well, good old Zakalwe manages to be much more emotionally tortured than
most Culture people, as well as having a greater ability to screw up because
he starts with less advantages. But _Excession_ has the most genuinely evil
Culture citizens we've seen in any of the books. A power-engrossed
ambassador, a Mind willing to risk important things over a stupid byplay
with two of its former passengers -- which it forces them to resolve whether
they like it or not, another Mind willing to kill its fellows to start a
major war, another that kills in battle through what sounds a lot like
torture, another that mindreads people, then plays judge, jury and
executioner and who also kills by torture... Of course the Affront are
played almost for comedy value, and the whole thing doesn't have the
atmosphere of UoW, but if you look at what is actually happening, there is
more than enough evil to go around.
> If you prefer a book because its "Literary", then you probably get more
> out of reading books than I do, but I choose books I think I will like
> for the sheer enjoyment of reading them. To me, there is no other reason
> for reading a book.
This whole thing starts to get into an argument so often made that I could
only summon the energy to gesture at a few signposts if we had it. Rather
than starting to quote famous utilitarians and art critics, I'll just say
that there are many reasons to read a novel, such as the gaining of wisdom
about the human condition or about some part of artistic creation, or the
effect that truly good novels have on the formation of a personal worldview.
Martin Lewis
> ? will, of the main character and some of the other characters in it. Yes,
> ? it may be very well written, but I don't like it. I've read it twice now
> ? and it will be a while before I pick it up again (my copy of Excession
> ? is falling apart).
>
> Well, good old Zakalwe manages to be much more emotionally tortured than
> most Culture people, as well as having a greater ability to screw up because
> he starts with less advantages. But _Excession_ has the most genuinely evil
> Culture citizens we've seen in any of the books. A power-engrossed
> ambassador, a Mind willing to risk important things over a stupid byplay
> with two of its former passengers -- which it forces them to resolve whether
> they like it or not, another Mind willing to kill its fellows to start a
> major war, another that kills in battle through what sounds a lot like
> torture, another that mindreads people, then plays judge, jury and
> executioner and who also kills by torture... Of course the Affront are
> played almost for comedy value, and the whole thing doesn't have the
> atmosphere of UoW, but if you look at what is actually happening, there is
> more than enough evil to go around.
It also has the Genar Hoeffen's partner trying to murder his child and
him for his infidelity, an astonishly unCulture-like scene. In fact the
only interCulture crime I can think of in the novels.
Martin
Robert Struthers
Rich Puchalsky wrote:
>
<snip>
> executioner and who also kills by torture... Of course the Affront are
> played almost for comedy value, and the whole thing doesn't have the
> atmosphere of UoW, but if you look at what is actually happening, there is
> more than enough evil to go around.
>
I don't think the Affront are particularly comic - the casual brutality
with which they treat their servants/partners/subordinates marks then
down as a particularly unpleasant species. Which leads to the question
as to why Genar-Hofoen actually wants to BE one.
Robert Struthers
Rich Puchalsky
> It also has the Genar Hoeffen's partner trying to murder his child and
> him for his infidelity, an astonishly unCulture-like scene. In fact the
> only interCulture crime I can think of in the novels.
Ah yes, forgot that one. She and Byr go together because they both have an
un-Culture-like fascination with power over others, often shown as sexual
power. She is better at manipulating people than he is; after all she keeps
a Mind going for decades with her passive-aggressive refusal to give birth
ploy.
Rich Puchalsky
> Rich Puchalsky wrote:
> > executioner and who also kills by torture... Of course the Affront are
> > played almost for comedy value, and the whole thing doesn't have the
> > atmosphere of UoW, but if you look at what is actually happening, there
is
> > more than enough evil to go around.
> >
>
> I don't think the Affront are particularly comic - the casual brutality
> with which they treat their servants/partners/subordinates marks then
> down as a particularly unpleasant species.
I find it rather comic when an alien intelligent species is presented as the
reincarnation of the British colonial officer corps.
Rich Puchalsky
> In article <6IDd6.123217$y9.24...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, Rich Puchalsky
wrote:
> > But _Excession_ has the most genuinely evil
> >Culture citizens we've seen in any of the books. A power-engrossed
> >ambassador,
>
Genar-Hofoen. Leffid struck me as a likeable person.
> >a Mind willing to risk important things over a stupid byplay
> >with two of its former passengers -- which it forces them to resolve
> >whether they like it or not,
>
> Okay, now we're talking about Minds. Apart from the Bora Horza Gobuchul,
> we've never really been given much insight into Minds before Excession.
> In PoG the entire role of Minds is left quite ambivalent.
In PoG, the Minds' intervention is what causes Gurgeh to grow up. Yes, they
put him at risk, but in doing so they pushed him into an adulthood that he
was actively looking for at the beginning of the book and might never have
found otherwise.
> >another Mind willing to kill its fellows to start a
> >major war,
>
> The Attitude Adjuster has been convinced of its role by its peers.
> Almost certainly some flaw in its character -
Sure, but I think it qualifies as an "evil Culture citizen" no matter how it
got there. It had free choice.
> >another that kills in battle through what sounds a lot like
> >torture,
>
> Which is this - Killing Time?
Yep. It forces more than one ship that it thinks might be the AA to kill
themself by what is described by agonizing mental torture, rather than using
other available battlefield means. If I remember the scene rightly, it
doesn't give the coup de grace to all of those ships.
> >another that mindreads people, then plays judge, jury and
> >executioner and who also kills by torture...
>
> Some might say that the Grey Area/Meatfucker is the most moral of
> all Culture Minds we have seen.
Only if you find death by torture to be an ethical punishment for mass
murder. No Earth legal system prescribes this punishment, not even in the
U.S.
> I can't really see all that much evil. I see caprice, ennui, plotting,
> maniplulation and war. Just what would you expect massively intelligent,
> apocalyptically powerful Minds to do?
I was trying to make a comparison with UoW. If one thinks all of the
actions in _Excession_ are business as usual, I can't think what one would
find so evil about the characters in UoW. The main difference is that UoW
is a much better book in which the characters have much more depth, so that
their problems with their consciences actually bother you.
john bennett
>...
> In any event, I certainly don't see what
> Grey Area does to that Lizardy Guy to be torture. No physical attack,
> just forcing his subconcious to face the fact of what he has done. After
> all, by any measurement we are capable of, the death was instantaneous -
> remember the certification of the doctor? If an evil mind is consumed by
> the realities of its evil, who really weeps in the night?
>
> Daniel.
Doesn't the Grey Area actually include the neural web, or whatever
it is, in its exhibition of instruments of torture?
I do have trouble finding the moral centre in Excession. The
Affront are a perpetual cause of misery to virtually every sentient
being over which they have power - but neither the Culture as a
whole, nor - significantly - the Excession itself, consider
restraining them.
John Bennett
Steve Charlton
<rpuch...@mediaone.net> writes
>Steve Charlton <st...@nospam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Well, good old Zakalwe manages to be much more emotionally tortured than
>most Culture people, as well as having a greater ability to screw up because
>he starts with less advantages. But _Excession_ has the most genuinely evil
>Culture citizens we've seen in any of the books. A power-engrossed
>ambassador, a Mind willing to risk important things over a stupid byplay
>with two of its former passengers -- which it forces them to resolve whether
>they like it or not, another Mind willing to kill its fellows to start a
>major war, another that kills in battle through what sounds a lot like
>torture, another that mindreads people, then plays judge, jury and
>executioner and who also kills by torture... Of course the Affront are
>played almost for comedy value, and the whole thing doesn't have the
>atmosphere of UoW, but if you look at what is actually happening, there is
>more than enough evil to go around.
I do get the distinct impression that Banks is trying to out do Star
Trek - and he's succeeding admirably. A small Culture hand weapon is
used to shoot down a (non-Culture) starship, ships' weapons have ranges
measured in parsecs, the old battered ship in CP with its old fashioned
twin warp nacelles on wings at the back, speeds far beyond the 1024
lights that warp 9 gives you. I could go on.
All of this *requires* ships to be controlled by their Minds. In
Excession one of the Minds breaks off a conversation so it can explain
what's going on to its human crew. They couldn't possible react in time
to any of the external events.
>
>> If you prefer a book because its "Literary", then you probably get more
>> out of reading books than I do, but I choose books I think I will like
>> for the sheer enjoyment of reading them. To me, there is no other reason
>> for reading a book.
>
>This whole thing starts to get into an argument so often made that I could
>only summon the energy to gesture at a few signposts if we had it. Rather
>than starting to quote famous utilitarians and art critics, I'll just say
>that there are many reasons to read a novel, such as the gaining of wisdom
>about the human condition or about some part of artistic creation, or the
>effect that truly good novels have on the formation of a personal worldview.
Agreed; and with what's been said lately about cloning of human beings
happening soon and genetic modification on the cards, we should all sit
down and read RAH's "Friday", before it is decided that clones or
enhanced humans don't have souls or rights or that they can be owned.
Richard Longhurst
messily meddling with a soc' that is advanced enough to know its being meddled
with?
Rich Puchalsky
> >This whole thing starts to get into an argument so often made that I
could
> >only summon the energy to gesture at a few signposts if we had it.
Rather
> >than starting to quote famous utilitarians and art critics, I'll just say
> >that there are many reasons to read a novel, such as the gaining of
wisdom
> >about the human condition or about some part of artistic creation, or the
> >effect that truly good novels have on the formation of a personal
worldview.
> Agreed; and with what's been said lately about cloning of human beings
> happening soon and genetic modification on the cards, we should all sit
> down and read RAH's "Friday", before it is decided that clones or
> enhanced humans don't have souls or rights or that they can be owned.
Sorry, but if you cite RAH's "Friday" as an example of a good novel, you
haven't understood what I've written.
iande...@my-deja.com
> I like the fact that some ships' Minds and
> Drones are main (or at least view point) characters. I like the
> different personalities the Minds have. I like the pace of the story.
One of Banks' accomplishments in the science fiction genre is that he
makes his aliens (and by this I mean "alien to the experience of Banks'
contemporaies") truely alien. Even the deviants we encounter are
apporpriately devient with regards to their surroundings. Would not a
sentient being with Grey Area/Meatfucker's natural abilities and
cultural milleau actually make such a personality possible (even if it
is a deviant by Culture standards?)
This is something I find sadly lacking in most space opera-- species
differences are merely presented as an excuse for one character to be
violent and another to be a trickster, etc.
I
> like the described tech levels and capabilities (none of the "you have
> to be in visual range to fire" trekie crap). I wouldn't say that *all*
> of the characters were shallow, but some have to be when the book has
> that many.
Banks does a good job of moving away from the World War II in space
tropes that are used in space opera-- the style of warfare is determined
by the technology in the novel rather than the otherway around which is
more commonly used by other writers.
> If you prefer a book because its "Literary", then you probably get
more
> out of reading books than I do, but I choose books I think I will like
> for the sheer enjoyment of reading them. To me, there is no other
reason
> for reading a book.
Different people have different reasons for enjoying books. I happen to
read a great deal of poetry and so sometimes I get off on how well Banks
crafts certain sentences and such. Many people do not have the interest
in poetry or in individual sentence. Our brains vary as far as to what
sort of information they seek.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
iande...@planetdirect.com
"Rich Puchalsky" <rpuch...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >another that mindreads people, then plays judge, jury and
> > >executioner and who also kills by torture...
> > Some might say that the Grey Area/Meatfucker is the most moral of
> > all Culture Minds we have seen.
> Only if you find death by torture to be an ethical punishment for mass
> murder. No Earth legal system prescribes this punishment, not even in > the U.S.
Morality comes from conviction and exercise of will. Ethics comes from
habit and procedure.
There is nothing cynical or opportunistic about Grey Area/Meatfucker
unlike that of the upstanding Minds of the Culture who ostracize GA most
of the time until they need a task.
GA's endevours result from a conviction of what is right and wrong-- it
travels from world to world researching the organized and systematic
destruction of sentients by other sentients, showing great compassion for
the memory of the victims and then punishing the perpetrators.
This is something that in Earth religions is oft behavior ascribed to the
diety or dieties-- and given the mystic bent some of the Minds are
revealed to have in Excession, it is quite /possible/. GA believes it is
above the rules of the Culture because it is following the will of God.
GA seems to have an almost religious dedication to its quest. For this
the other Minds call GA "Meatfucker."
(Comparison with Soren Kierkegaard's concept of "Teleological suspension
of the Ethical" excised since this is not a newsgroup on philosophy or
theology.)
Plenty of legal systems on Earth allow for torture to the point of death.
Witness the Third Reich, Pinochet's Argentina, the Khmer Rouge, the
Cultural Revolution and the USSR during the Leninist and Stalinist
periods (Toss in your favorite Fascist or Communist regime that I forgot
to mention-- my list is not exhaustive) just in the twentieth century.
Of course I will concede that "proscribe" is not a synonym for "permit."
Kevin McGuire
: Note that I think that, in a society that has the morality that Banks says
: the culture has, I think that the other Minds would really care about the
: torturing part a good deal more than they appear to. The reason they don't
: is because Banks has an essentially sadistic view of such matters. The
: "death of a bad guy by torture" scene is a Banks staple, almost an
: obligatory scene in the Culture books.
I hadn't thought of this until you mentioned it, but you're absolutely right.
--
Kevin McGuire University of Pennsylvania
Gropius Riftwynde
McGuire) wrote:
>Rich Puchalsky (rpuch...@mediaone.net) wrote:
>: The "death of a bad guy by torture" scene is a Banks staple, almost an
>: obligatory scene in the Culture books.
>
>I hadn't thought of this until you mentioned it, but you're absolutely right.
The death of the bad guy is an obligatory scene in most adventure
level lit. The death of the bad guy by torture is a scene which some
authors attempt but usually they cop out before they seem to be
advocating worse behaviour than the bad guy. The death of the bad guy
means that make you retch is what the reader actually wants, but you
have to remember that we live in a society that would hang people for
sheep stealing if it were left to street vigilantes.
Where has my fucking sheep gone....?
GR
Gropius Riftwynde
Riftwynde) wrote:
>The death of the bad guy
>means that make you retch is what the reader actually wants, but you
>have to remember that we live in a society that would hang people for
>sheep stealing if it were left to street vigilantes.
I don't know what came over me. I really ought to get a syntax
checker. Or possibly a syntex chucker.
GR
Rich Puchalsky
> >The death of the bad guy
> >means that make you retch is what the reader actually wants, but you
> >have to remember that we live in a society that would hang people for
> >sheep stealing if it were left to street vigilantes.
>
> I don't know what came over me. I really ought to get a syntax
> checker. Or possibly a syntex chucker.
That's OK, the meaning is clear anyway. I often do things like writing "in"
instead of "is" and mess up my sentences...
But to reply to the meaning of your post, I think you should look at "The
State of the Art" and "Player of Games", specifically the parts where the
Culture marvels about how people will defend any unjust aspect of their
society as "human nature". Saying "it's human nature to want to see bad
guys die by torture" is empirically disprovable, however. If you can find
large numbers of people who don't, then it clearly isn't human nature, at
least not in the all-encompassing, immutable fashion that is often implied
by these words. I think that you will find that not all societies have
large numbers of people who desire this kind of thing.
Nor do these scenes in Banks books correspond to similar death of a bad guy
scenes in other adventure lit books, as you say. On the contrary, Banks is
well-known for pushing things further. The stereotype is for the bad guy to
be shot (or something) and die quickly, not to be tortured to death.
I've been through this before on this newsgroup, specifically in reference
to _Inversions_ and LTW, two books in which Banks runs away with this kind
of thing to the severe detriment of the book, and to the extent that he
warps his own early conception of the Culture. Why does he do it? Well,
there was a post where I set out all the alternatives I could think of. If
I remember rightly, the possibilities were: 1) I've misunderstood his
books, 2) he's a bad writer, at least about this, 3) he's playing to an
audience that likes this kind of thing, 4) the "Heretic" theory.
The first three I think are more or less improbable. Heretic was a guy
posting here who said, as clearly as I can paraphrase him, that Banks had
the feelings of a conservative concealed by the intellectual beliefs of a
leftist, and that these feelings came out in his writing whether he wanted
them to or not. I don't think the political terminology is best to describe
this kind of thing, so I'll say that Banks seems to have a fascination with
torture, and with violent control in general, that undermines his ability to
write about a society in which people really don't approve of these things
even when applied to bad guys; i.e. a civilized society of the kind that
Banks intellectually believes in.
Try reading _Complicity_, for example -- the whole tension of the book is
eliminated if you ask "complicity with what?" I don't think that book works
at all unless you feel that there was some possible justice in what the
killer was doing. If, instead, you merely regard him as a nutty serial
killer, the whole question of whether anyone should feel complicit -- such
as society, or his mousy and ineffectual friend -- becomes moot. It's as if
we were asked to identify with Frank's murders in _The Wasp Factory_, a much
better book.
Gropius Riftwynde
<rpuch...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>But to reply to the meaning of your post, I think you should look at "The
>State of the Art" and "Player of Games", specifically the parts where the
>Culture marvels about how people will defend any unjust aspect of their
>society as "human nature". Saying "it's human nature to want to see bad
>guys die by torture" is empirically disprovable, however.
Public executions were a common feature of England and France up to
the end of the 18thC. From what I read, people just took these as a
publicle spectacle, like a firework display.
>Nor do these scenes in Banks books correspond to similar death of a bad guy
>scenes in other adventure lit books, as you say. On the contrary, Banks is
>well-known for pushing things further. ...Heretic was a guy
>posting here who said, as clearly as I can paraphrase him, that Banks had
>the feelings of a conservative concealed by the intellectual beliefs of a
>leftist, and that these feelings came out in his writing whether he wanted
>them to or not. I don't think the political terminology is best to describe
>this kind of thing,
Me neither. The issues are more complex.
>so I'll say that Banks seems to have a fascination with
>torture, and with violent control in general, that undermines his ability to
>write about a society in which people really don't approve of these things
>even when applied to bad guys; i.e. a civilized society of the kind that
>Banks intellectually believes in.
>...
>Try reading _Complicity_, for example -- the whole tension of the book is
>eliminated if you ask "complicity with what?" I don't think that book works
>at all unless you feel that there was some possible justice in what the
>killer was doing. ...
This comes back in a way to the public execution thing in a way. Our
response to a crime is personal, and not necessarily in line with what
we believe in politically, or at least intellectually. A public
execution would not appeal to me personally, either emotionally or as
a spectacle. But certainly reaction to bad guys can be very visceral -
such as people's typical reaction to a child murderer or child rapist,
on a general social level, and their reaction to a burglar or mugger
on a strictly personal level. To some extent, I think that 'revenge'
is a visceral cruelty built into the human psyche, which is overriden
by standards of social civilisation but which is quite rightly
exploited and explored by novelists, film-makers, etc. If we don't
examine our own gut reactions (preferably at a safe, artistic,
distance) then we cannot understand the nature and complexities of our
definitions of culture.
GR
iande...@my-deja.com
"Rich Puchalsky" <rpuch...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> My original claim was that the book contained evil Culture citizens. Evil
> is not necessarily cynical or opportunistic.
Nor was I equating cynicism and opportunism with evil.
Cynicism and opportunism are generally considered character flaws. Evil is a
metaphysical category whose existence causes one to feel that there is
something dreadfully wrong with the very species one belongs to or even with
the entire universe.
Yes, that was an illustrative hyperbole, please humor me.
> > GA's endevours result from a conviction of what is right and wrong-- it
> > travels from world to world researching the organized and systematic
> > destruction of sentients by other sentients, showing great compassion for
> > the memory of the victims and then punishing the perpetrators.
> Punishing them by torturing them to death. (And if you don't beleive it was
> torture, I'll have to find the original text for you.) This is not only
> abhorrent to many or most Earth people and against every advanced Earth
> system of morality, it is outside the Culture's morality as well -- c.f.
> Zakalwe's speech to the Ethnarch.
GA considers itself an instrument of justice destroying evil by torturing it
with the evil that it does. This justice that GA follows is not a legal code
as the Culture has no legal codes-- it is a conviction.
Again, to wax philosophically, justice (both in the legal sense and
metaphysical sense) has often been defined as the repayment of injustice
with injustice. I confess that this is a line of thought that I would like
human civilization to move away from, but it is certainly part of our
psychology and at least seems to show up within certain deviant citizens of
the Culture (i.e. GA.)
> You make a distinction between morality and ethics; whichever sense of
> whichever word you like, it was an evil action.
I am not justifying GA/Meatfucker's actions. I am trying to metaphorically
travel a few thousand lights inside it's fields.
> > This is something that in Earth religions is oft behavior ascribed to the
> > diety or dieties-- and given the mystic bent some of the Minds are
> > revealed to have in Excession, it is quite /possible/. GA believes it is
> > above the rules of the Culture because it is following the will of God.
>
> ??? Most certainly not. Banks uses religious imagery and religious
> metaphor all the time, but the character GA in his book does not beleive in
> God or the will of God. I don't understand this, even as a metaphor of your
> own.
I was refering to the metaphysical justice that apparantly motivates GA.
Note that I said that GA _possibly_ believes in God as well. While there is
no precident for Culture humans to believe in God, _Excession_ does give
precident for Culture Minds to believe in God. That was an extrapolation.
> > Plenty of legal systems on Earth allow for torture to the point of death.
> > Witness the Third Reich, Pinochet's Argentina, the Khmer Rouge, the
> > Cultural Revolution and the USSR during the Leninist and Stalinist
> > periods
> I was talking about current legal systems. Those others are commonly
> regarded as barbaric and evil.
The People's Republic of China is alive and well. I am sure that any human
rights activists who might also happen to read this newsgroup can chime in
and give far more and far more graphic examples.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Try reading _Complicity_, for example -- the whole tension of the book is
> eliminated if you ask "complicity with what?" I don't think that book works
> at all unless you feel that there was some possible justice in what the
> killer was doing. If, instead, you merely regard him as a nutty serial
> killer, the whole question of whether anyone should feel complicit -- such
> as society, or his mousy and ineffectual friend -- becomes moot. It's as if
> we were asked to identify with Frank's murders in _The Wasp Factory_, a much
> better book.
>
the joy of Complicity, for me, was identifying with almost all aspects
of a character and yet having to label that character a the bad
guy...that is what makes it a much better book than The Wasp Factory IMO
the complicity includes the reader...I felt I was examining part of
myself, and that Banksie was examining part of himself too
I felt a separation with the Wasp Factory...I was observing somebody
else...it wasn't as powerful, though it was easier to feel emotional
about
we are ALL capable of reacting to things we abhor with the anger that
merges with hatred...we are ALL capable of wishing somebody dead...we
are ALL capable of killing and torturing...fortunately we are also all
capable of over ruling such emotional reactions...but trying to pretend
we don't all feel such things doesn't help...it makes a totally false us
and them situation...and that's what leads to people thinking "he's a
psychopathic killer, and he must be killed because I am justifiably
angry"
I like Complicity because it deals with the very aspects of personality
and circumstance that make the difference when it comes to the choice of
kill or let live...and it's a wonderful antidote to the standard media
oversimplification of good and evil
I'm not sure that Complicity has as much of Banksie's soul in it as some
of the other books...but it is elegant and concise, it tackles a major
moral issue with clarity and subtlety...and yet it's really easy to
read...at some point he's going to combine the polish of Complicity with
the emotion of the earlier books...and when he does he's going to be a
truly great novelist
--
eric
"the alternative to seeing things in black and white
is to see them in full colour"
BlueShift
Is that it over there by the shearing sheep and the eating sheep?
BlueShift
-+-+-+--+-+-+-
Getting closer
==============
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats,
for they are subtle
and will piss on your computer."
--Bruce Graham
==============
Rich Puchalsky
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:44:42 GMT, "Rich Puchalsky"
> >State of the Art" and "Player of Games", specifically the parts where the
> >Culture marvels about how people will defend any unjust aspect of their
> >society as "human nature". Saying "it's human nature to want to see bad
> >guys die by torture" is empirically disprovable, however.
>
> Public executions were a common feature of England and France up to
> the end of the 18thC. From what I read, people just took these as a
> publicle spectacle, like a firework display.
And, as I said above, 18th C England and France do not define "human
nature". I am quite willing to beleive that many human beings, and
majorities of entire societies, would happily be willing to torture bad
people to death. That doesn't mean that this is some fundamental of human
existence that we just have to live with. Not when there are other people
and societies that don't behave in this way.
Let's remember the context here. GA is an intelligent being from a society
that knows better than to approve of this kind of thing. Yet GA rejects
that morality.
> To some extent, I think that 'revenge'
> is a visceral cruelty built into the human psyche,
Banks argues against this kind of argument for very good reasons, because it
is a fundamentally conservative argument. It says that human feelings are
never going to change, they are inbuilt, and therefore every aspect of
current society must be a response to those immutable human feelings and is
therefore itself immutable. If you try to change through "social
enginneering", you are doomed to fail, probably after having made things
worse. Any aspect of any current human society can be claimed to be the
result of some posited immutable thing "built into the human psyche".
> which is overriden
> by standards of social civilisation
"Standards of social civilization" is a rather value-neutral phrase. After
all, the Stalinist Gulag was fully in keeping with the social standards of
its civilization. I think it's more descriptive to say that in rejected the
civilized standards of its community, the GA was acting evilly.
> but which is quite rightly
> exploited and explored by novelists, film-makers, etc. If we don't
> examine our own gut reactions (preferably at a safe, artistic,
> distance) then we cannot understand the nature and complexities of our
> definitions of culture.
I fully agree that artists have to use their gut reactions, and can examine
whatever they want to examine. But Banks' readers should understand,
clearly, that Banks' own gut reactions take him in a direction that is
opposed to the intellectual and moral direction of his books.
Rich Puchalsky
> "Rich Puchalsky" <rpuch...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > My original claim was that the book contained evil Culture citizens.
Evil
> > is not necessarily cynical or opportunistic.
>
is a
> metaphysical category whose existence causes one to feel that there is
> something dreadfully wrong with the very species one belongs to or even
with
> the entire universe.
>
> Yes, that was an illustrative hyperbole, please humor me.
The person who I was replying to originally said something like there was
too much evil in the characters in Use of Weapons for him to like the book.
Since he introduced the term, I've continued using it. But I don't think
it's a bad word; evil is not necessarily a metaphysical category.
American Heritage Dictionary: evil 1) morally bad or wrong; wicked;
malevolent; sinful 2) [...] harmful, injurious [...] 4) purportedly bad or
blameworthy; undesirable; infamous 5) characterized by anger or spite;
malicious
> GA considers itself an instrument of justice destroying evil by torturing
it
> with the evil that it does.
I don't see any support in the text for this interpretation, just as I don't
see any support for the suggestion that GA beleives in something like God.
GA presents itself as a truth-seeker.
> Again, to wax philosophically, justice (both in the legal sense and
> metaphysical sense) has often been defined as the repayment of injustice
> with injustice. I confess that this is a line of thought that I would
like
> human civilization to move away from, but it is certainly part of our
> psychology
There's that argument again.
> > You make a distinction between morality and ethics; whichever sense of
> > whichever word you like, it was an evil action.
>
> I am not justifying GA/Meatfucker's actions. I am trying to
metaphorically
> travel a few thousand lights inside it's fields.
Well, I can certainly come up with reasons *why* it does what it does, and
within the limits of the word count devoted to the character, empathize with
it. But so what? I found Frank in _The Wasp Factory_ to be a very
understandable, empathetic, evil person. Every person in the world does
what they do for some reason, usually an understandable one. That has
nothing to do with whether they or their actions are evil or not.
> > > Plenty of legal systems on Earth allow for torture to the point of
death.
> > > Witness the Third Reich, Pinochet's Argentina, the Khmer Rouge, the
> > > Cultural Revolution and the USSR during the Leninist and Stalinist
> > > periods
>
> > I was talking about current legal systems. Those others are commonly
> > regarded as barbaric and evil.
>
> The People's Republic of China is alive and well. I am sure that any
human
> rights activists who might also happen to read this newsgroup can chime in
> and give far more and far more graphic examples.
You previously said "the Cultural Revolution", not the PRC. The current PRC
does not have an official punishment of death by torture. They do it
unofficially, but they don't try to justify it to the world as morally
praiseworthy, because they know it's not. Some of those previous regimes
had large numbers of people who beleived that it was morally praiseworthy.
Rich Puchalsky
> we are ALL capable of reacting to things we abhor with the anger that
> merges with hatred...we are ALL capable of wishing somebody dead...we
> are ALL capable of killing and torturing...fortunately we are also all
> capable of over ruling such emotional reactions...but trying to pretend
> we don't all feel such things doesn't help...
Uh, how do you know that we all are capable of these things? A poll?
Introspection? Observation? Reading history? And just what does "capable"
mean -- does it mean psychologically capable of doing it without being
forced to? If it means that, should I assume that "ALL" means that if
Mahatma Gandhi had come upon a British torturer torturing an Indian woman,
he would have been capable of slowly cutting the torturer to pieces?
But it's good that you think we are all capable of over ruling such
reactions. (Similarly false, actually, if you consider people with damaged
impulse control, but it's good that you think so.) If we are all capable of
over ruling such reactions, doesn't that mean that people who know better,
yet fail to overrule these reactions, are evil? Or you could say that they
are acting evilly if you prefer, but you should remember that in this case
we're discussing a being who apparently does this kind of thing often.
Magnus Paterson
Gropius Riftwynde wrote
>
> Where has my fucking sheep gone....?
>
> GR
You keep a sheep for that?
M
Loz
Mummy told him not to play with his food.
Loz {:-)>
"I'll shave my skull instead, be just another Onionhead"
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> > we are ALL capable of reacting to things we abhor with the anger that
> > merges with hatred...we are ALL capable of wishing somebody dead...we
> > are ALL capable of killing and torturing...fortunately we are also all
> > capable of over ruling such emotional reactions...but trying to pretend
> > we don't all feel such things doesn't help...
>
> Uh, how do you know that we all are capable of these things? A poll?
> Introspection? Observation? Reading history? And just what does "capable"
> mean -- does it mean psychologically capable of doing it without being
> forced to? If it means that, should I assume that "ALL" means that if
> Mahatma Gandhi had come upon a British torturer torturing an Indian woman,
> he would have been capable of slowly cutting the torturer to pieces?
some of the research done into the psychology of obedience shows that
randomly selected group s of people will, almost without exception,
follow quite ridiculous orders
beyond even that, we all have some "buttons" that will knock us right
through logic and compassion into outright hatred...hopefully most of us
will never find out what they are
the people responsible for all the bloodshed and hatred in Rwanda or the
Balkans aren't some sort of strange alien beings...they are perfectly
ordinary people who have been manipulated into agreeing with and taking
part in mass murder...not everyone goes along with it...but I don't see
any reason to believe that some people are somehow qualitatively
superior to the mob and can never act that way...it seems far more
likely that they are simply more tolerant (not infinitely more), better
informed (and that's a fragile advantage in many societies), or simply
had the wrong buttons pressed for them
> But it's good that you think we are all capable of over ruling such
> reactions. (Similarly false, actually, if you consider people with damaged
> impulse control, but it's good that you think so.) If we are all capable of
> over ruling such reactions, doesn't that mean that people who know better,
> yet fail to overrule these reactions, are evil? Or you could say that they
> are acting evilly if you prefer, but you should remember that in this case
> we're discussing a being who apparently does this kind of thing often.
>
I'm very wary of the idea of absolute good or evil as an intrinsic
quality...partly because I think of myself as someone who has to work at
doing the right thing, it isn't natural to me...but mostly because I'm
not convinced that the two qualities are definable outside of ones
individual perspective...I've been accused of being evil for attacking
homophobia, I've been accused of promoting evil by suggesting that the
powerful should feel some responsibility for the weak (apparently it's
bad for the weak to suggest this)...I've even been accused of promoting
evil by suggesting that some rap records are worth listening to (but
then if anything truly is evil it's Country and Western music and it's
fans *grin*)
this is the problem...first evil has to be defined before we can really
communicate about it...and I'm not sure how easy it would be to get a
working definition that a large number of people were happy with
and then, once it's defined, you have to decide what counts...the intent
or the result...either is a real beggar to judge
to get back to the point...all this means I'm very loath to place myself
unequivocally on the side of "good"...and even less happy about the idea
of ascribing "evil" to somebody else
that, for me, is the joy in reading Complicity...the evil in that book
is entirely concrete, it is purely a matter of actions that cause harm,
the seeds that cause those actions are things that are very easy to
relate to...you can absolve yourself of responsibility when reading The
Wasp Factory...you either have to be very high minded, or totally
unaware of yourself to read Complicity and never once think "Oh God! I
sometimes think like that"
my brain hurts...I need supper :(
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Rich Puchalsky
> some of the research done into the psychology of obedience shows that
> randomly selected group s of people will, almost without exception,
> follow quite ridiculous orders
That research, at least the studies I've heard of, showed only that some or
even a majority of people will do these things. That isn't everyone.
> the people responsible for all the bloodshed and hatred in Rwanda or the
> Balkans aren't some sort of strange alien beings...they are perfectly
> ordinary people who have been manipulated into agreeing with and taking
> part in mass murder...not everyone goes along with it...but I don't see
> any reason to believe that some people are somehow qualitatively
> superior to the mob and can never act that way...it seems far more
> likely that they are simply more tolerant (not infinitely more), better
> informed (and that's a fragile advantage in many societies), or simply
> had the wrong buttons pressed for them
Anyone has a reason for anything they do; unless you're willing to claim
determinism and the resulting inability for anyone to make a truly free
choice about anything, there has to come a point where you say that some
people choose to do evil. In the case that we're talking about, we're
talking about humans and Minds from the imaginery Culture society, one in
which individuals are very tolerant and highly informed. If they choose to
torture people to death anyway, doesn't that make them evil?
And to address the pushed buttons argument; in hardly any case in a Banks
book is the torture-death done as a spur of the moment act of rage
precipitated by a "button being pushed". It's almost always a cold and
calculated thing.
> I'm very wary of the idea of absolute good or evil as an intrinsic
> quality...
I supplied a dictionary definition of "evil" in another post in this thread;
it need not be some kind of metaphysical or absolute quality, and you can
think of it as a description of behavior patterns if you don't like to think
of it as intrinsic.
> partly because I think of myself as someone who has to work at
> doing the right thing, it isn't natural to me...
Well, I don't see how this applies. I find many different things difficult
or easy. If I find it difficult to work with tools, or find it easy to
write literary tracts, that doesn't mean that everyone finds these same
things difficult or easy.
I also question whether you truly have a problem with this kind of behavior.
Do you often get mad at someone who had committed an injustice and feel
seriously tempted to torture them to death? It's possible that you have
this problem, but not very likely.
> this is the problem...first evil has to be defined before we can really
> communicate about it...and I'm not sure how easy it would be to get a
> working definition that a large number of people were happy with
Well, you could just pick one of the ones from the dictionary.
>
> and then, once it's defined, you have to decide what counts...the intent
> or the result...either is a real beggar to judge
Not really a factor in this case; intent and result are pretty well matched.
>
> to get back to the point...all this means I'm very loath to place myself
> unequivocally on the side of "good"...and even less happy about the idea
> of ascribing "evil" to somebody else
Just because some people misuse the word doesn't mean that it's off limits.
I think it's better to tell people just why fighting homophobia is good
rather than evil, to use one of your examples, than to give up and just say
that everything's relative.
iande...@my-deja.com
> The person who I was replying to originally said something like there was
> too much evil in the characters in Use of Weapons for him to like the book.
> Since he introduced the term, I've continued using it. But I don't think
> it's a bad word; evil is not necessarily a metaphysical category.
> American Heritage Dictionary: evil 1) morally bad or wrong; wicked;
> malevolent; sinful 2) [...] harmful, injurious [...] 4) purportedly bad or
> blameworthy; undesirable; infamous 5) characterized by anger or spite;
> malicious
I tend to define "evil" more narrowly than some-- I think it fair to
acknowledge that our conceptions of evil versus unethical versus wrong,
might not overlap completely.
> > GA considers itself an instrument of justice destroying evil by torturing
> it
> > with the evil that it does.
>
> I don't see any support in the text for this interpretation, just as I don't
> see any support for the suggestion that GA beleives in something like God.
> GA presents itself as a truth-seeker.
My temperment is more speculative than yours and you have a greater
mastery of this text than I.
> > but it is certainly part of our
> > psychology
> There's that argument again.
I also contend that compassion and empathy is part of our psychology and
that these tendencies might even pose a more important role in the
formation of societies. Human nature allows for one to be hostile,
apathetic or sympathetic to others. Human nature allows one choices. We
are not hardwired for only one option.
> You previously said "the Cultural Revolution", not the PRC. The
> current PRC
> does not have an official punishment of death by torture. They do it
> unofficially, but they don't try to justify it to the world as morally
> praiseworthy, because they know it's not. Some of those previous
> regimes
> had large numbers of people who beleived that it was morally
> praiseworthy.
Some of the events I glossed upon still seem to have happened so recently
that I think of them as contemporary. It would not surprise me if it is
going on somewhere in the world. It's not as if my information is free.
Len Richards
<loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com> who made this post:
>On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:38:04 -0000, "Magnus Paterson" <m...@roe.ac.uk>
>and after much thought, wrote:
>
>>
>>Gropius Riftwynde wrote
>>>
>>> Where has my fucking sheep gone....?
>>>
>>> GR
>>
>>You keep a sheep for that?
>>
>>M
>>
>Mummy told him not to play with his food.
>
>
>Loz {:-)>
>
You mutton do dat sort of thing.
Len
- taking it on the lamb
Rich Puchalsky
(Me:)
> > I don't see any support in the text for this interpretation [that GA
thinks it's an instrument
> > of justice], just as I don't
> > see any support for the suggestion that GA beleives in something like
God.
> > GA presents itself as a truth-seeker.
>
> My temperment is more speculative than yours and you have a greater
> mastery of this text than I.
Well, I don't know about mastery, but generally I think that if it's worth
discussing these things its worth looking back at what the text actually
says. From Chapter I, Section V:
(Gray Area): "There was work to be done."
(Honest Mistake): "More animal brains to be delved into?"
(GA): "History to be unearthed. Truth to be discovered."
That's as close as GA ever gets to telling anyone why it does what it does.
Later on the book mentions that GA advertises itself as a travelling
genocide museum, which is in keeping with what it says above.
I like speculation, and I'm not trying to discourage it, but you might as
well start with what you know. The text encourages some lines of
speculation and discourages others.
iande...@my-deja.com
> Well, I don't know about mastery, but generally I think that if it's worth
> discussing these things its worth looking back at what the text actually
> says. From Chapter I, Section V:
Agreed. Hense I try to label my speculation as such with words like
"possibly." Excession is the Culture novel I've read which seems most
fertile for the sort of specualtion I enjoy (not to say I don't enjoy other
Banks' novels-- I enjoy them for different reasons.)
> That's as close as GA ever gets to telling anyone why it does what it does.
> Later on the book mentions that GA advertises itself as a travelling
> genocide museum, which is in keeping with what it says above.
> I like speculation, and I'm not trying to discourage it, but you might as
> well start with what you know. The text encourages some lines of
> speculation and discourages others.
I believe the text allows with that possibility that GA's stated mission as a
truth seeker also includes the unstated mission of avenger for those whose
memories it is preserving. GA (if my interpretation is correct) would know
that this unstated aspect of its mission would be offensive to both its
fellow minds and to the drones and humans of the Culture though GA would
think it right.
iande...@my-deja.com
> the people responsible for all the bloodshed and hatred in Rwanda or the
> Balkans aren't some sort of strange alien beings...they are perfectly
> ordinary people who have been manipulated into agreeing with and taking
> part in mass murder...not everyone goes along with it...but I don't see
> any reason to believe that some people are somehow qualitatively
> superior to the mob and can never act that way...it seems far more
> likely that they are simply more tolerant (not infinitely more), better
> informed (and that's a fragile advantage in many societies), or simply
> had the wrong buttons pressed for them
It seems quite reasonable to argue that humans in general, are capable of
anger, hatred and sometimes even violence of either the physical or
psychological variety. This seems to be something that the Culture has
largely ameliorated with social engineering, elimination of want, and
possibly genofixing.
To conduct a war, be it genocidal or not, following some "rules of
conduct" or not, seems not to come from some basic human capacity or
predisposition but rather from social organization.
A friend of mine who was a Green Beret during the Vietnam War noted to me
the way the military manipulates human psychology to form its war
machine: first, a number of young men are forced into close confines
where they bond and form some sort of emotional affinity, then train them
to fight and otherwise conduct missions, then place them in harm's way.
This ex soldier friend of mine made it clear that the reason he and his
men killed and placed their lives on the line was not for country or flag
but for the men they fought alongside. They sacrificed and killed for
the survival of their comrades (a primal form of loyalty.) As he then
added, "If the president or the generals who got us into this mess showed
up in our path, we would have shot them for endangering our lives."
Gropius Riftwynde
>To conduct a war, be it genocidal or not, following some "rules of
>conduct" or not, seems not to come from some basic human capacity or
>predisposition but rather from social organization.
Indeed. There is something ludicrous about there being proper and
improper ways of killing people, which evades the question about
whether killing people is acceptable at all. Admittedly there is a
difference between nations that launch wars, and those that defend
against invasion, but even that, though important and valid on the
basic level, becomes ever more mired in moral casuistry when it is
persued along the lines of specific circumstances and instances. War
is not initiated by moralists but by politicians and generals, and it
is fought by ordinary people.
On a lighter note, there was a 'Goons' comedy album some years ago
(this will mean nothing to non-British readers) called The Bridge Over
the River Why. "Haven't you heard of the Geneva Convention?" says the
British officer. "Have neither read book nor seen film, so get
digging," replies the Japanese officer.
>A friend of mine who was a Green Beret during the Vietnam War noted to me
>the way the military manipulates human psychology to form its war
>machine: first, a number of young men are forced into close confines
>where they bond and form some sort of emotional affinity, then train them
>to fight and otherwise conduct missions, then place them in harm's way.
>
>This ex soldier friend of mine made it clear that the reason he and his
>men killed and placed their lives on the line was not for country or flag
>but for the men they fought alongside.
Of course. That is what means most to most people. The people they
know personally, and who give meaning to what they do and feel every
day.
There is another valid dimension, though. I think it was the Battle of
Britain pilot Douglas Bader who said something like: we fly over the
fields of our own home country, and we think about these bastards who
come over every day to drop bombs on it, and the people who live in
it, and we think **** them, I want to shoot them out of the sky.
GR
Martin Lewis
> >conduct" or not, seems not to come from some basic human capacity or
> >predisposition but rather from social organization.
>
> Indeed. There is something ludicrous about there being proper and
> improper ways of killing people, which evades the question about
> whether killing people is acceptable at all. Admittedly there is a
> difference between nations that launch wars, and those that defend
> against invasion, but even that, though important and valid on the
> basic level, becomes ever more mired in moral casuistry when it is
> persued along the lines of specific circumstances and instances.
I think your right to say that its important whether a war is just or not.
However I don't think there's any sophistry or casuistry involved in
claiming that in a just war there are proper and improper ways of killing
people, frex, not executing prisoners, not targeting civilians.
> War
> is not initiated by moralists but by politicians and generals, and it
> is fought by ordinary people.
Sorry, I'm not sure of your point. Are you claiming that people can't act
in a moral way unless they are moral philosophers?
Martin
- -
xGSV I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine
Gropius Riftwynde
<mar...@theculture.org> wrote:
> I think your right to say that its important whether a war is just or not.
>However I don't think there's any sophistry or casuistry involved in
>claiming that in a just war there are proper and improper ways of killing
>people, frex, not executing prisoners, not targeting civilians.
How do you want to die today? True, there are quick and slow ways of
killing people, respectful and degrading ways, 'legal' and 'illegal'
ways, but the bottom line is that you end up unjustly dead. AFAIK
there are no proper ways of killing people, in or out of war. Of
course, I would not hestitate to kill you if you were obviously about
to kill me, but that would just be reactive and practical.
Prisoners? Well, in America they are frequently executed.
>> War
>> is not initiated by moralists but by politicians and generals, and it
>> is fought by ordinary people.
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure of your point. Are you claiming that people can't act
>in a moral way unless they are moral philosophers?
I am saying that individuals follow their own morals. As The Universal
Soldier lyrics go, '..he's a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.' I'm
saying that wars begin for a variety of usually immoral reasons, and
that they are actually fought by individuals, equipped with their own
individual, cultural or religious morals. 'He knows he shouldn't kill
but he knows he always will...'
GR
Martin Lewis
not.
> >However I don't think there's any sophistry or casuistry involved in
> >claiming that in a just war there are proper and improper ways of killing
> >people, frex, not executing prisoners, not targeting civilians.
>
> How do you want to die today? True, there are quick and slow ways of
> killing people, respectful and degrading ways, 'legal' and 'illegal'
> ways, but the bottom line is that you end up unjustly dead. AFAIK
> there are no proper ways of killing people, in or out of war. Of
> course, I would not hestitate to kill you if you were obviously about
> to kill me, but that would just be reactive and practical.
Okay, here's where we differ - you believe self-defence is excusable, I
believe self-defence is morally permissable. As Eric D'Arcy puts it: "If an
act is justified, the agent is responsible for it, but the act is, in the
circumstances, not wrong. If it is excused, the act is a wrongful one, but
the agent is, because of some special circumstances, not responsible for
it."
I pretty much subscribe to Forfeiture Theory, the belief that it is
possible to forfeit your rights through some actions, such as treatening
somebody with lethal force.
By coincidence I'm currently in the middle of writing a dissertation on
just war and permissible killing and I haven't really formed a personal set
of beliefs but I'm leaning towards whether the war is just or unjust
overdetermines all act and within a just war certain acts of killing are
morally permissible. As you point out in your original post war is a
horribly complicate and non-standard situation.
> Prisoners? Well, in America they are frequently executed.
I think its obvious from the context that I was talking about prisoners of
war. Whilst you'll get no argument from me that criminal executions are
immoral its a seperate issue.
> >> War
> >> is not initiated by moralists but by politicians and generals, and it
> >> is fought by ordinary people.
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not sure of your point. Are you claiming that people can't
act
> >in a moral way unless they are moral philosophers?
>
> I am saying that individuals follow their own morals. As The Universal
> Soldier lyrics go, '..he's a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.' I'm
> saying that wars begin for a variety of usually immoral reasons, and
> that they are actually fought by individuals, equipped with their own
> individual, cultural or religious morals. 'He knows he shouldn't kill
> but he knows he always will...'
I think that's slightly contradictory. I'd question how much people follow
a set of thought out personal moral beliefs rather than follow inhereited
cultural morals. I also think people are more concerned by practical
concerns such as "if you kill PoWs you will be tried as a war criminal" than
moral ones.
Also I don't really see how this backs up your original post.
Martin
- -
xVFP I Ain't Marching Anymore
Gropius Riftwynde
<mar...@theculture.org> wrote:
> Okay, here's where we differ - you believe self-defence is excusable, I
>believe self-defence is morally permissable. As Eric D'Arcy puts it: "If an
>act is justified, the agent is responsible for it, but the act is, in the
>circumstances, not wrong. If it is excused, the act is a wrongful one, but
>the agent is, because of some special circumstances, not responsible for
> it."
Self defence is an imperative, 'morally' justified or not. How many
people review the legal or moral dimensions at a moment where
self-defence is imperative?
> I pretty much subscribe to Forfeiture Theory, the belief that it is
>possible to forfeit your rights through some actions, such as treatening
>somebody with lethal force.
Meaningless without a particular context. "Mr. Hitler, I abjure you to
desist from gassing Jews, otherwise I will shoot you dead, even though
it wil undoubtedly consign me to an eternity of Hell or possibly a
long period of Community Service for being such a horrid, wicked
person."
> By coincidence I'm currently in the middle of writing a dissertation on
>just war and permissible killing and I haven't really formed a personal set
>of beliefs but I'm leaning towards whether the war is just or unjust
>overdetermines all act and within a just war certain acts of killing are
>morally permissible. As you point out in your original post war is a
>horribly complicate and non-standard situation.
This is a true dilemma, because in order to define a just war, you
need to define the motives and interests of the people who are
involved in it, not just the military but the citizens. To take an
example, in the late 30s, Adolf Hitler had the political support of
the majority of the ordinary German people, not just
politically/economically but militarily.
Now, to decide whether the attacks on Spain, the anschluss and the
invasion of Poland, for example, were 'just' in any sense, and from
whose point of view, is the first major hurdle. Is it 'just' to keep
your own citizens out of the condition of war, by refusing to defend
the attack, or is it 'just' to include them in participating in their
own defence? Is it even 'just' to resist the attacker at all, rather
than turning the other cheek?
If such actions were determined to be just (and exactly by whose
standards do you judge?), thence to the manner of killing. Do you kill
only the military, or also the citizens of the 'enemy'?' Do you
sacrifice some of your own agents in order that their information is
not compromised (common on the allied side during the occupation of
France)? Do you kill through lack of support, by trial, by personal
reaction, by negligence, by indifference, by political convenience,
from hate, by revenge, out of a sporting spirit, out of a sense of
moral outrage, by bullet, by knife, by proxy, what?
>> I am saying that individuals follow their own morals. As The Universal
>> Soldier lyrics go, '..he's a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.' I'm
>> saying that wars begin for a variety of usually immoral reasons, and
>> that they are actually fought by individuals, equipped with their own
>> individual, cultural or religious morals. 'He knows he shouldn't kill
>> but he knows he always will...'
>
> I think that's slightly contradictory. I'd question how much people follow
>a set of thought out personal moral beliefs rather than follow inhereited
>cultural morals. I also think people are more concerned by practical
>concerns such as "if you kill PoWs you will be tried as a war criminal" than
>moral ones.
I don't understand your point, either. Inherited cultural morals are
extremely diverse (at least in Europe and America). Personal ideas
about what is right or what is wrong are an amalgam of (diverse)
cultural derivations and personal experience and conviction. To take
your example, one individual may think personally that a given PoW
should be shot out of hand, but that fair trial is the 'right' thing,
and another may feel that the same PoW is a poor unfortunate bugger
who was only doing his job and deserves to survive. As it happens, I
have spoken to a German PoW who was a fighter pilot, subsequently
became a PoW in the UK, married a British girl and became a model
British citizen. If I had been alive and encountered that same person
in the sky in 1943 I would have shot him without trial by pressing a
button. That would have been my personal choice in the heat of the
moment, legally sanctioned or not. That is what I meant when I said it
comes down to individuals, and personal judgement, circumstances and
moral standards.
GR
Kelvin Hamilton
Interesting thread. I'd really like to read a copy of your dissertation if
that's possible - rough cut would be fine.
Have you read 'humanity, a moral history of the twentieth century' by
jonathan glover - it's not long come out (isbn 0712665412). I've just
started it as I'm also fascinated by the justification of war, genocide and
all the rest- particularly how ordinary people can end up performing such
horrific acts.
Well, the book is quite heavy going and slightly academic but fascinating. I
recommend it.
Cheers,
Kelvin Hamilton
Lars Syrstad
> Indeed. There is something ludicrous about there being proper and
> improper ways of killing people, which evades the question about
> whether killing people is acceptable at all.
Ludicrous? Not really. Basic evolution, more likely.
A human society that could not bring itself to kill would most likely
be killed and disappear. Two or more human societies that were able
to agree upon ways to limit the amount of killing while still
fulfilling whatever necessity that prompted the killing in the first
place would both increase their chances of surviving in competition
with other societies which would go for mass slaughter, and
consequently also face a greater risk of being wiped out themselves.
At the core of the concept of ritualistic warfare lies a very sensible
principle: Maximized probability of survival.
Moral ethics can only thrive in an abundant environment. Scarcity
brings forth the baser instinct. Rituals, the concepts of proper
and improper -- call it an intelligent society's well learned
instincts.
Or: Given that war may be unavoidable, it makes perfect sense to try
to limit its scope in advance. In wartime, legislation may be
worthless, but moral outrage may still work against possible
extermination.
- Lars.
--
"Never forget I am not this silver body, Mahrai. I am not an animal
brain, I am not even some attempt at producing an AI through software
running on a computer. I am a Culture Mind. We are close to gods,
and on the far side." -- Masaq' Hub (Iain M Banks: Look to Windward)
Martin Lewis
> >believe self-defence is morally permissable. As Eric D'Arcy puts it: "If
an
> >act is justified, the agent is responsible for it, but the act is, in the
> >circumstances, not wrong. If it is excused, the act is a wrongful one,
but
> >the agent is, because of some special circumstances, not responsible for
> > it."
>
> Self defence is an imperative, 'morally' justified or not. How many
> people review the legal or moral dimensions at a moment where
> self-defence is imperative?
Are you saying that self-defence is not a conscious decision cos I'm not
convinced about that.
> > I pretty much subscribe to Forfeiture Theory, the belief that it is
> >possible to forfeit your rights through some actions, such as treatening
> >somebody with lethal force.
>
> Meaningless without a particular context. "Mr. Hitler, I abjure you to
> desist from gassing Jews, otherwise I will shoot you dead, even though
> it wil undoubtedly consign me to an eternity of Hell or possibly a
> long period of Community Service for being such a horrid, wicked
> person."
Well, the thing about forfeiture theory is that it requieres a really short
causal chain. Plus you only forfeit your right to life whilst immediately
threatening someone. So if Hitler was about to kill me or someone else, say,
in the same room as me I'd be permitted to kill him. When you stretch the
causal chain out, like in your example, things get hazy and you are
prohibited from killing Hitler cos he doesn't pose an *immediate* threat.
Its not that its meaningless without context just that its more specific
than brief outline.
> > By coincidence I'm currently in the middle of writing a dissertation on
> >just war and permissible killing and I haven't really formed a personal
set
> >of beliefs but I'm leaning towards whether the war is just or unjust
> >overdetermines all act and within a just war certain acts of killing are
> >morally permissible. As you point out in your original post war is a
> >horribly complicate and non-standard situation.
>
> This is a true dilemma, because in order to define a just war, you
> need to define the motives and interests of the people who are
> involved in it, not just the military but the citizens. To take an
> example, in the late 30s, Adolf Hitler had the political support of
> the majority of the ordinary German people, not just
> politically/economically but militarily.
>
> Now, to decide whether the attacks on Spain, the anschluss and the
> invasion of Poland, for example, were 'just' in any sense, and from
> whose point of view, is the first major hurdle. Is it 'just' to keep
> your own citizens out of the condition of war, by refusing to defend
> the attack, or is it 'just' to include them in participating in their
> own defence? Is it even 'just' to resist the attacker at all, rather
> than turning the other cheek?
Classically there are three conditions for a just war - it is declared by a
legitimate authority, it is for a just cause and it is for the right
intentions. After get rid of the religious element, that holy war is
justified, you are left pretty much with the answer that any invasive war is
unjust and any defensive
war or liberating war (coming to the aid of an invaded country) is just. So
therefore WW2 is just for the Allies and unjust for the Axis power. Which as
you'll appreciate is pretty simplistic. For a start any defensive war that
is waged succesfully will eventually become an agressive war.
Also it doesn't tell us anything
about whether the way in which the way the war is waged is just or unjust.
There's a view that a just war must by nature by limited, unlike the
Second World War which was total war. Or a subset of that; you use any means
available as long as the aggressor uses them first.
> If such actions were determined to be just (and exactly by whose
> standards do you judge?), thence to the manner of killing. Do you kill
> only the military, or also the citizens of the 'enemy'?' Do you
> sacrifice some of your own agents in order that their information is
> not compromised (common on the allied side during the occupation of
> France)? Do you kill through lack of support, by trial, by personal
> reaction, by negligence, by indifference, by political convenience,
> from hate, by revenge, out of a sporting spirit, out of a sense of
> moral outrage, by bullet, by knife, by proxy, what?
I think the accepted view is that you can only kill the military, because
implicity they represent the state and pose a treat. Conscripts pose a
problem for this however. Plus where does the line stop? Its pretty hazy but
roughly it applies to those directly contributing to the threat like
munitions workers but not indirectly like farmers.
Specific rules of engagement and specific deployment of weaponary is a bit
of, ahem, a minefield. In vague terms the more discrimatory the better. For
example, no bombing from 30,000 feet where you can't tell a tractor from an
APC. Plus weapons that aren't designed to maim, disfigure or torture the
enemy rather than merely stop them (no flamethrowers, chemical, biological,
etc). However why this allows conventional small arms fire (which of course
will kill you) is a bit of a mystery.
Interesting fact 1: the UK police use weapons that would be illegal in war
time under the Geneva Convention.
Interesting fact 2: the UK wanted to shoot the leaders of the Third Reich
out of hand, it was Stalin who insisted on a trial.
Okay, I understood that but what else would it be other than "individuals,
and personal judgement, circumstances and moral standards"?
A pretty incomplete answer cos I don't have one.
Martin
Martin Lewis
> that's possible - rough cut would be fine.
So would my tutor, unfortunately I'm better at bullshitting on usenet than
working out a rigourour argument on paper. When I do though, sure.
> Have you read 'humanity, a moral history of the twentieth century' by
> jonathan glover - it's not long come out (isbn 0712665412). I've just
> started it as I'm also fascinated by the justification of war, genocide
and
> all the rest- particularly how ordinary people can end up performing such
> horrific acts.
>
> Well, the book is quite heavy going and slightly academic but fascinating.
I
> recommend it.
By coincidence I was flicking through this in a second hand bookshop on
Saturday, which was the first I'd ever heard of it. In the end I got Guns,
Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond and White Mars by Brian Aldiss and Roger
Penrose (interesting combination) instead. I may have to go back though.
Thanks for the reccomendation.
Martin
iansan
anyway? and has he any wool (or should that be wood???)
Love to all at G...n.....n
"BlueShift" <BlueShift2000@hotmail_is_a_spam_magnet.com> wrote in message
news:3a81c343....@news.waikato.ac.nz...
Charles
news:96od5f$tbr$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > By coincidence I'm currently in the middle of writing a dissertation
on
> > >just war and permissible killing and I haven't really formed a personal
> set
> > >of beliefs but I'm leaning towards whether the war is just or unjust
> > >overdetermines all act and within a just war certain acts of killing
are
> > >morally permissible. As you point out in your original post war is a
> > >horribly complicate and non-standard situation.
I don't know if sticking my oar in here is Ok but what the hey..
Surely assuming that either side/faction/whatever did not go to war just
becasue they hadn't had one in a while and were feeling frisky, then the
orriginal aggressor (if such a thing can ever be devined - there are always
past reasons) must have had a rational goal. An objective that was to be
reached. In their mind this objective *justifies* the cost of war. Is it
only possible therefore, to be able to decide upon the war being just/unjust
if the orriginal aggressor lost?
Because if the aggressor won then a) any history of the war would have
more than likely been written by them and b) as they considered the cause to
be worth the war then in their minds at least is must have been a just war.
As a cororoly: does this mean that any war where the aggressor lost be
deemed unjust?
Sorry - just bored at work.
Martin Lewis
> on
> > > >just war and permissible killing and I haven't really formed a personal
> > set
> > > >of beliefs but I'm leaning towards whether the war is just or unjust
> > > >overdetermines all act and within a just war certain acts of killing
> are
> > > >morally permissible. As you point out in your original post war is a
> > > >horribly complicate and non-standard situation.
>
> I don't know if sticking my oar in here is Ok but what the hey..
>
> Surely assuming that either side/faction/whatever did not go to war just
> becasue they hadn't had one in a while and were feeling frisky, then the
> orriginal aggressor (if such a thing can ever be devined - there are always
> past reasons) must have had a rational goal. An objective that was to be
> reached. In their mind this objective *justifies* the cost of war.
Sure, people have reasons, even rational ones for going to war. The
point is not whether they have a justification but whether they are
morally justified. And I would claim that an aggressive war cannot be
justified in this way.
As for "there are always past reasons" I don't buy that at all and even
if I did it wouldn't make any difference in determining who was the
aggressor.
> Is it
> only possible therefore, to be able to decide upon the war being just/unjust
> if the orriginal aggressor lost?
>
> Because if the aggressor won then a) any history of the war would have
> more than likely been written by them
I don't see how this is true.
>and b) as they considered the cause to
> be worth the war then in their minds at least is must have been a just war.
>
> As a cororoly: does this mean that any war where the aggressor lost be
> deemed unjust?
I wrote a follow up post to the one you replied to which has more
detail about this stuff.
Martin