Spotlight:

[Shockwave]

I'm neither a lawyer nor a cop so I'm not 100% certain (although I do know both a state trooper and federal judge, so I suppose I could ask). I think my rape example is probably the best example of what I'm talking about. I know there have been cases (I could find examples) where bystanders who didn't intervene were charged as accessories to the rape. I do see what you're saying about those being saved representing a threat, but Prowl knew the girl wasn't going to hurt him. Since Breakdown was already subdued, he knew the same about him. The fact that Breakdown is about to stomp him as part of Menasor's foot certainly would back up your argument, but Prowl didn't know that at the time. In fact, at the time, Prowl was operating under the assumption that both the Autobots and Decepticons are acting as post war individuals and couldn't have known that Breakdown would later step on him. In the case of the girl, she was no direct threat to Prowl and he was in a position to save her without serious injury to himself. Not doing so would have been wrong. Even the cop that had been riding in Prowl saw this and helped him out because of it.

[Sparky Prime]

I would argue that "obligation" implies a mandate. A nice thing to do is just that, a nice (but not mandated) thing to do. The mugging analogy does not really work here. If the mugging victim is likely to turn on their savior, (as the case with Breakdown and to a point the girl would be), then saving them is a dicier proposition.

That's the thing, you keep saying simply "obligation" when a "moral obligation" is a separate concept. You're right that simply an "obligation" implies a mandate, something someone is required to do. However, a "moral obligation" is defined as something one ought to do based on their value system, but they are not bound to fulfill that mandate.

And I'd have to say mugging analogy still works. It doesn't matter how likely it might be that the mugging victim might turn on their savior. The point remains on whether or not it's morally right to save that victim in the first place.

[Dominic]

How would we want to be treated if our guys are captured or we lose? Better treat the other guy the same way. In other words, sheer self-interest comes into play. And there's a certain amount of simple human decency in not letting helpless opponents bleed to death or gunning them down rather than taking them prisoner, even with all of the trouble and expense that entails. Note that this doesn't apply to some groups like Al Queda, who happily hack prisoner's heads off with dull swords and post the video online for the world to see.

There is also a practial angle to treating prisoners well. If they know they will be treated well, enemies will not fight as hard. I think there are some case studies from WWII where Axis troopers surrendered because they knew being a US POW was a step up.

And, there are accounts of al Qaeda members breaking suprisingly easily when treated well. (I am not saying they deserve to be treated well. But, it can be a tool.) Of course, that is a different situation than the one we are discussiong with Prowl.

But the Autobots and Decepticons have clearly established some kind of standards by which they fight, given Ultra Magnus' job of catching those who violate the accords, and given the existence of the Garrus-9 penitentiary.

Your are also forgetting the disproportionate value place on Aquitas. Clearly, there is blackmail fodder there.


Dom

[Dominic]

And yet Skywatch is doing just that. It's valuable to them for the purpose of understanding the enemy, what makes them tick, and how they can develop defenses against future aggression. Intelligence value, in other words, makes capturing and maintaining Transformers a worthwhile pursuit.

Of course, the question becomes one of how many they can maintain. If you only need X-amount of expensive prisoners, there is no neet to keep X+1-amount.

Sometimes knowing the right thing to do and not doing it for whatever reason is just as bad as doing something wrong. There's not a lot of difference.

What I am saying is that sometimes looking away is the best choice. Putting yourself at risk, especially if you have obligations to others, (friends, family, colleagues), is not moral. It might give one a feeling of good ol' righteousness. But, it is no mark of higher morality.


Dom
-having trouble formatting longer posts tonight.

[Dominic]

Sorry, I really *am* having trouble with long posts tonight. (I typed that last line above before anything else, so it would be ready when I started having trouble.)

Think of low or even mid-level corruption. The less one has to do with that (in any respect), the better off they are going to be.

I am fairly certain that any attempted mandates, (and there have been more than a few of those), have failed. (The only exceptions being situations with mandatory reporters mentioned above. Of course, mandatory reporters work in fields that one does not just blunder into. so they effectively consent to liability.)

That's the thing, you keep saying simply "obligation" when a "moral obligation" is a separate concept.

I would argue that a moral obligation is required in order to not be reprehensible. Of course, then one has to argue about where to set that bar.


Dom
-dammit...one more.

[Dominic]

The situation with Brakedown might come down to the terms of the treaty. (Prowl's musings make me think the treaty would have little to do with it in any case.) Prowl's primary obligation was to Prime and the Autobots, and that obligation came with "stay out of trouble" orders. The same principle applies to the little girl.

Prowl was irresponsible, and arguably played a role in Ironhide getting shot. (Granted, Prowl might have thought that Prime would leave him to rot as was the case with several other Autobots. But, his actions would still have left Prime out a tactician.) The incident with the little girl easily could have gone badly for Prowl.

I am just saying I want more from Prowl and Costa than "it is the right thing to do".

Dom
-finally.

[Shockwave]

I think the incident with Thrust and the subsequent discussion with Prime was supposed to illustrate that he's not ok morally with just sitting by and letting stuff happen. And in the discussion with Prime, Prime makes it pretty clear that the Autobots are no longer the military unit that they were. Perhaps a few more instances like with one with Thrust would have illustrated the change in Prowl better. I'm ok with the one example (and I'm assuming there were more instances in the 8 months than just the one with Thrust). Dom's not. Either way, Prowl knew he could save the girl with no real threat to himself and also knew that the girl wasn't any threat to him either so he did the right thing and I applaud him for it. Now with Breakdown, I can see this from a couple of angles. I can see Dom's point. Breakdown was an enemy. But let's put that aside for the moment. Beyond that, Breakdown is an individual Prowl knows to be a violent homocidal (cybercidal?) sociopath. And he was in a situation where intervening directly puts his own life at risk. So risking his life to save someone that's going to kill without thought or remorse (and presumably has) is illogical. It would be like one of us risking our lives to save Osama Bin Laden. Personally, I wouldn't do it. But, I can also see the flip side of it. He also saw Skywatch about to kill a Cybertronian just for being a Cybertronian. He doesn't like the idea of being erradicated and figured he was next. Then he probably flashed back to the incident with Thrust and decided to take a stand against a hostile species (or at least, the hostile members of it). If humans were being wiped out, I'd want to go down fighting as well, but I wouldn't risk my being wiped out to save Osama Bin Laden just because he's another human. In Prowl's case, I would probably find a way to retreat and retaliate later. THAT would have been the logical thing to do.

[Dominic]

Prime makes it pretty clear that the Autobots are no longer the military unit that they were.

I see what you are saying. But, there is a difference betwen being a civilian and being stupid. Breakdown might not be a formal enemy. But, that does not make him a friend, ally or even a constituent.

As you point out, Breakdown is a homicidal maniac. There is no reason to help him on anything. If nothing else, letting him die might save more lives down the road.

The UBL example does not quite fit. With UBL, there might be some value in capturing him alive, provided it could be done quietly. (UBL is probably worth interrogating But, the political costs of keeping him as a prisoner would have to be contained. The soldiers who captured him would likely keep quiet. But, other witnesses would have to be discredited or otherwise dealt with.)

In this case, it would be more a question of helping somebody that you knew, (regardless of political considerations), would probably shoot you in the back. If Prowl was saving the little girl in a situation where there were not dozens of witnesses, (including guys who would be inclined to kill him), that would be one thing. If Breakdown was not a homicidal maniac, then saving him would be more justifiable.


Getting revenge later would be wholly irrational. Killing the humans in their sleep later to prevent them from killing more TFs would be fine though. Of course, a more logical solution might be to set humans on Decepticons, to provoke Decepticon survivors to focus more on humans and/or join the Autobots for protection.


Dom
-obviously, that would require being sneaky.

[andersonh1]

Dom and I have a completely different view of what's moral and what isn't here, because the image of Autobots murdering humans in their sleep just disturbs me greatly. I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this.

[Shockwave]

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that they go back and kill them in their sleep, but a frontal confrontation to eliminate a threat is certainly understandable.