• Olivia wrote a new post, Battlestar Galactica: The Species or Human Rights, on the site Skepchick 5 years, 10 months ago

    I’ve been watching Battlestar Galactica for the past few months (warning: some spoilers ahead), and generally deeply enjoying the show, particularly President Roslin. Until a few episodes ago when President Roslin […]

    • First! that’s a first for me.

      There is a difference in perspectives that may apply when you believe in the existence of gods or not.

      It’s easy enough for an unbeliever, schooled with some science, to see that there is no thing as “inherent good”. Value is something only a consciousness can apply, and only has value as “good” (or bad) to that consciousness.

      So yeah, compromising rights for things that have no inherent “good” makes little sense.

      But a religious person on the other hand, will see themselves as the most valuable and good thing in existence since they were personally created by a omnipotent benevolent God whose mind we cannot comprehend, yada yada, and thus “good” is absolute….and that where the trouble starts.

      Such a person who gets it into their head that they know all about what is absolute good, and who feel like they need control, when others disagree, they’ll oppress and kill for it….because “they know” the “truth”.

      I think Roslin, if she was wiser, might have made a announcement that even though abortion was still legal, anyone considering abortion might think of the future, and at the very least consider giving it up for adoption to the designated official civil care group. I’m sure 99% of the population would have thought that reasonable and not aborted, and there would be no need to oppressive laws that threaten imprisonment, etc.

      One aspect of our culture maybe that to be in control it is thought that MUST involve ordering and commanding people to submit, instead of setting a reasonable example that others willingly follow.

    • Well, this is much more interesting than BSG ever became for me (I gave it about two seasons before giving up on it). Your argument about the moral weight of the existence or nonexistence of humans is really interesting. I don’t really agree with it, and I wish I had the time to explain why, since I think I’d learn a lot from the conversation (but unfortunately I am in the middle of both writing a dissertation AND moving, which are basically two of the stupidest things to try to combine). But the conclusion I get from your argument, that whatever moral weight we might assign to the perpetuation of the human species cannot outweigh the value of bodily autonomy for individual humans, I think is spot on. Indeed, I think autonomy is among the traits that makes human existence special and worthy of moral consideration.

      The species is not a living thing that deserves our respect and care. It is simply an organization of other lives, and those individual lives should always be prioritized.

      This is a really interesting idea. What do you think about the analogous idea where this is scaled down from the whole species to a culture? I think many people have a moral intuition that there is something intrinsically bad about the extinction of a culture, above and beyond the deaths of the individuals who belong to it — hence the notion of genocide as a distinct crime from mass murder. Do you think your same reasoning applies in this case, or is there something different between the two? If the same reasoning applies, what do you think the source of the erroneous moral intuition is? (Sorry if this reads like a “gotcha” question, I don’t intend it as one — I’m genuinely curious what you think.)

    • My immediate emotional response is that perpetuating the existence of a culture by demanding hardships of the individuals in that culture isn’t the obvious no-no you make it out to be. And of course now I’m trying to rationalize this stance, which is uncomfortably hard.

      One thing I’m wondering though, unless we put an inherent value on adding lives and the perpetuation of the species, how do we justify creating new life? When you decide to have a child, you “doom” a child to existence, and existence you don’t know if will be appreciated by the child and which will certainly include at least some pain and suffering.

      Based on way too little contemplation I think continuing the species and my culture is the best of not very good arguments. I don’t necessarily think it’s good enough to counter the bodily autonomy argument in the case at hand, but I think by discounting it completely we also end up calling procreation immoral.

    • I always figured that this attitude was Roslin’s flaw.
      I mean, *everybody* in that series was absolutely, seriously flawed in some capacity (except maybe Lee Adama, who was meant as a kind of benchmark of sanity to compare everyone else to).
      This was Roslin’s flaw: her obsession with the number on the white board leading her to ruling other women’s bodies in order to create more mouths to feed. The reasonable course of action was:
      a) establish a stable food source
      b) take the entire cost of child-rearing onto the gov’t (where necessary, at least make the offer to anyone on the edge of decision)
      c) encourage child birth
      Assuming, of course, you could show their population was below some “optimum level” and I don’t know how you’d do that.

    • While this read to me more as Roslin’s own political calculus, both to avoid a direct political confrontation, and to address her personal obsession with the dwindling population, I think the moral question is more interesting in the context of the wider BSG universe — because there are gods, or at least the cylon “god” as present actors in this universe.

      Would relegating personal rights to the will of super-natural, or at least super-technological powers that were indistinguishable from gods be obviously wrong as it is in a universe such as ours where there are no such active gods?

      I’m inclined to argue that it is still wrong to subjugate people in this way, but it’s hard to make moral arguments that apply to a fictitious universe that is significantly different from our own, precisely because morality is an analysis of the emergent properties of whichever universe the events are in.

    • As we all know our resources are very limited. We’re gonna need people, people that can’t work and prevent other people from working as well. Some of you have volunteered to bring these children into the world – No, thank you.

      Volunteers have sacrificed so much; it’s time to delegate a task to the unwilling. Rape victims, people that don’t understand how to use space contraception, and parents whose children will certainly die before reaching adulthood all need to pitch in and try to bring people into this world, even if their doctors insist that mother and baby will die in that attempt.

      (I was not impressed by that moment in the series.)