TF Views

Even so, would a character like Hotrod work? There is a difference between being rash and impulsive versus stupid and unpricipled.

Prowl took a hit for a Decepticon. This is a textbook example of the kind of "because they need to be stupid/unprincipled for this to work" writing that plagues soft sci-fi.

Costa better have a plan.

Dom
-over 20 posts, and the first issue ain't out yet.

Dominic wrote:Even so, would a character like Hotrod work? There is a difference between being rash and impulsive versus stupid and unpricipled.

Prowl took a hit for a Decepticon. This is a textbook example of the kind of "because they need to be stupid/unprincipled for this to work" writing that plagues soft sci-fi.

On the other hand, I tend to look at it as part of the evolution of the Autobots from being a group that is willing to live with those "acceptable losses" to a group that places more value on life, even Decepticon life. That's the change we saw the beginnings of in All Hail Megatron. I don't see it as unprincipled at all. Quite the opposite. It's very much classic Autobot behavior and ethics. Even an enemy is worthy of compassion under some circumstances. Prowl would no doubt shoot Breakdown if they were on opposite sides of a battlefield, but if they found him injured on that same field, Ratchet would be treating his injuries.

Then again, something could come up in the rest of the issue that changes the whole incident. That's the problem with discussing a preview.

Then again, something could come up in the rest of the issue that changes the whole incident. That's the problem with discussing a preview.

I doubt it. Prowl is clearly angsting along the lines of "oooohhhhh nooooo, poor Breakedown...bawwwwwww".


This is arguably principled, but it is adherence to a lunatic principle. Sanctity of life as end unto itself is ridiculous, (and i say that as an aspiring vegetarian). If nothing else, saving Breakdown would likely cost more lives down the road when he kills somebody else.

Dom
-should do a panel on the "(lack of) ethics of soft sci-fi characters"....

Dominic wrote:

Then again, something could come up in the rest of the issue that changes the whole incident. That's the problem with discussing a preview.

I doubt it. Prowl is clearly angsting along the lines of "oooohhhhh nooooo, poor Breakedown...bawwwwwww".

Prowl is objecting to out and out cold blooded murder of a fellow Transformer, not angsting. Using lethal force against an already defeated and retreating opponent is clearly wrong. There's a certain nobility to risking his life for an enemy that I have to respect.

This is arguably principled, but it is adherence to a lunatic principle. Sanctity of life as end unto itself is ridiculous, (and i say that as an aspiring vegetarian). If nothing else, saving Breakdown would likely cost more lives down the road when he kills somebody else.

Your calculation leaves the possibility of redemption out of the equation, not to mention justice. However, if sanctity of life as an end unto itself isn't valid, what makes the lives Breakdown might potentially take valuable? If life has no inherent value simply because it's precious and irreplaceable, then what does it matter if Breakdown goes on to kill others down the line? What makes their lives more worthy of preservation than his?

You've got some circular logic going here. Life isn't inherently valuable, but a killing a potential killer is justified because he might take lives?

In any case, if the humans kill Breakdown for the equivalent of attempted theft, it would be like the police gunning a hungry man down in the street because he tried to steal something to eat. The lethal response is not justified by the depicted crime.

The problem with santity of life is that it purports to be a moral standard while seeking to nullify moral distinctions.

Prowl is objecting to out and out cold blooded murder of a fellow Transformer,

Is Prowl a bigot though? By this logic, he is obligated to protect the worst of his species, even against the best of another.

The humans are not engaging in cold-blooded murder. Breakdown is stealing a valuable resource from people who need it. Yes, he needs it. But, so do the people he is stealing it from. (If I am hungry, are you going to let me raid your kitchen, especially if your supplies are limited?)

Using lethal force against an already defeated and retreating opponent is clearly wrong. There's a certain nobility to risking his life for an enemy that I have to respect.

If the enemy is likely to come back and menace you and those you are obligated to, then letting them go is arguably treason. Given the economic and personal costs of prolonged conflicts, there is a real moral and utilitarian argument to be made for swift and brutal conflicts that are won decisively.

it would be like the police gunning a hungry man down in the street because he tried to steal something to eat. The lethal response is not justified by the depicted crime.

The scarcity of food is a consideration though. I live 20 minutes from a supermarket. And, I have income enough that I can purchase food. But, if food were more scarce, or I could not afford to buy more, I would guard my supplies more jealously. Now, consider how valuable fuel is to pretty much anyone who wants to do anything.

And, one has to ask what Breakdown would have done once he was fueled up. Is it really a good idea to let somebody with a track record of bad behavior put themselves into a position to commit more bad acts?


Putting an enemy first by expending resources and taking risks on their behalf is just foolish.

Your calculation leaves the possibility of redemption out of the equation, not to mention justice.

Why should Prowl, or anyone, be responsible for providing the chance for redemption? An active enemy is an active enemy. Something that harms said enemy is a boon. This is as absurd as the international community demanding that Burma allow relief supplies to reach the Tamils after the tsunami in '05.

You've got some circular logic going here. Life isn't inherently valuable, but a killing a potential killer is justified because he might take lives?

There is a difference between saying that life is not inherently valuable and saying it has no value. And, there is a difference between attacking a potential killer and letting a *known* killer die. If one wants to argue that life is (to some degree or another) precious, then saving a *known* killer is counter-productive, as preserving their life will only endanger/cost more lives.


Why is it wrong to make a moral distinction between allies, enemies and others? If there are no meaningful moral distinctions, then why are they an enemy to begin with?

In the case of the humans killing Breakdown, Prowl could have let one (lesser) problem solve another ((greater) problem. It would have been an effectively bloodless victory.


I will never understand why it is considered morally sound to do the more foolish thing.


Dom
-considers Prowl's inner thoughts to be angsting.

Dominic wrote:The problem with santity of life is that it purports to be a moral standard while seeking to nullify moral distinctions.

The problem with not starting out with a "all life is precious" foundation is that it inevitably leads to questioning the value of life based on subjective standards. That's hard to justify, because whose standard do you adopt?

Is Prowl a bigot though? By this logic, he is obligated to protect the worst of his species, even against the best of another.

Prowl doesn't jump to his defense until the probability of lethal force becomes clear. Up until that point, he's perfectly happy to see the humans take care of the situation themselves, even noting that they seem to be handling it just fine without the Autobots' help. It's not a case of bigotry, but a case of a response that went way over the top compared to the crime.

As for Prowl being concerned about a fellow Transformer being gunned down, it may be a simple case of feeling more kinship with him than he does with humans. The guns that are turned on Breakdown could just as easily be turned on him, since the humans view all Transformers with hostility at this point. I would chalk it up to empathy with Breakdown's situation rather than disregard for humanity.

The humans are not engaging in cold-blooded murder. Breakdown is stealing a valuable resource from people who need it. Yes, he needs it. But, so do the people he is stealing it from. (If I am hungry, are you going to let me raid your kitchen, especially if your supplies are limited?)

Again, the level of response to the crime is the issue here. No Autobot has any problem with the humans attacking and subduing Breakdown in response to his attack on the power station. Skywatch doesn't just sit back and let him take what he wants, and no one suggests that they should. It's when the humans are prepared to resort to lethal force on a defeated and retreating opponent that the problem arises.

If the enemy is likely to come back and menace you and those you are obligated to, then letting them go is arguably treason. Given the economic and personal costs of prolonged conflicts, there is a real moral and utilitarian argument to be made for swift and brutal conflicts that are won decisively.

Who said anything about letting Breakdown go? Capture him and imprison him. Now if he'd been slaughtering civilians in the street, as Skywarp did part way through AHM for example, then lethal force is certainly justified. If the only option the humans had was lethal force, then it would be hard to argue with its use to stop a powerful enemy. But they clearly overreacted.

it would be like the police gunning a hungry man down in the street because he tried to steal something to eat. The lethal response is not justified by the depicted crime.

The scarcity of food is a consideration though. I live 20 minutes from a supermarket. And, I have income enough that I can purchase food. But, if food were more scarce, or I could not afford to buy more, I would guard my supplies more jealously. Now, consider how valuable fuel is to pretty much anyone who wants to do anything.

By that logic, Breakdown is more than justified in attacking and trying to steal energy. He "needs a recharge"... his supplies of fuel are scarce. He has a right to survive, does he not?

And, one has to ask what Breakdown would have done once he was fueled up. Is it really a good idea to let somebody with a track record of bad behavior put themselves into a position to commit more bad acts?

To be fair, we don't know his track record prior to the attack on the power station. We've never seen him do anything before. And you can't just go gunning people down because they will potentially commit crimes.

There is a difference between saying that life is not inherently valuable and saying it has no value.

That goes back to my original statement. How do you determine the value? And who gets to impose the standard? See below for more on this.

And, there is a difference between attacking a potential killer and letting a *known* killer die.

Agreed.

If one wants to argue that life is (to some degree or another) precious, then saving a *known* killer is counter-productive, as preserving their life will only endanger/cost more lives.

True, but whose place is it to determine who lives or dies? Not the individuals. That's the point of a justice system with courts and evidence and standards of proof before execution can take place. Guilt must be established. Otherwise we may as well have vigilantes administer whatever retribution they feel like with no overriding standard. That leaves far greater room for an error to be made, and unlike areas where an error might be undone, if life is taken in error, that's it. There's no chance to undo the mistake. Choices regarding life and death demand a higher standard for that reason alone.

Why is it wrong to make a moral distinction between allies, enemies and others? If there are no meaningful moral distinctions, then why are they an enemy to begin with?

When did I say there was no distinction? Clearly there is. I didn't say otherwise.

In the case of the humans killing Breakdown, Prowl could have let one (lesser) problem solve another ((greater) problem. It would have been an effectively bloodless victory.

If the humans start indiscriminately killing Transformers, it would most certainly rebound on the Autobots at some point. There's good reason not to just sit back and allow that to happen.


This is getting awfully philosophical for a Transformers comic preview story.

Why yes it is. Cleverness + free time = this. Though, since I'm sorely lacking both...

While I can certainly Dom's point in regards to Prowl maybe sacrificing himself for Breakdown, I'll take this sorta behavior over, say, Sideswipe murdering an opponent who's most hostile action so far is to run so he isn't killed. Or, say, Prime executing a defeated enemy (who, again, was just like "Oh, crap, it's the Autobots! RUN!!"). I'll take "Heroic" Autobots over "Pragmatic" ones.

Anyway, let's look at it this way. While we don't know Breakdown in this story, previous iterations of this character don't make him out to be the worst of the Decepticons. He's a guy that tends to exhibit some extremely paranoid tendencies (Everyone, everything, is always watching him) and as such makes some bad decisions based on that. Admittedly, his running with the Stunticons kinda indicates a profoundly flawed character outside of the mental illness, but he still hardly seems to be the worst of that crew. Now, if it were Motormaster or Wildrider about to be executed by the humans, Prowl may well have been less interested in jumping to their defense.

Also: more Stunticons, please. I do not care one whit if they ever combine into Mensasor, I've just always liked those guys.

This is getting awfully philosophical for a Transformers comic preview story.

What is wrong with a TF discussion pitching high?

The problem with not starting out with a "all life is precious" foundation is that it inevitably leads to questioning the value of life based on subjective standards. That's hard to justify, because whose standard do you adopt?

The objective standard would be "what works". In this case, Prowl could sensibly have said "two parties that would happily kill me are killing each other, hot diggity damn". Instead, he angsts about how the humans are killing a defenseless Transformer, and then he does something *really* stupid.

It's not a case of bigotry, but a case of a response that went way over the top compared to the crime.

Prowl's angsting specifies that he is upset because Breakdown is a Transformer.

As for Prowl being concerned about a fellow Transformer being gunned down, it may be a simple case of feeling more kinship with him than he does with humans.

I am not saying that the bigotry is wholly out of line in this case. (Species lines being more important that racial ones, especially when dealing with a hostile species.)

The guns that are turned on Breakdown could just as easily be turned on him, since the humans view all Transformers with hostility at this point.

All the more reason not to jump out and help the (hostile) guy who is about to get killed and *completely*justify* the humans opinion that all TFs are the same.

It's when the humans are prepared to resort to lethal force on a defeated and retreating opponent that the problem arises.

A defeated oppnonent who is just going to come back and cause more problems. Why would the humans be obligated to act like the heroes from old cartoon, who just shrug when the bad guys retreat, rather than running them into the ground. (Actually, the bad guys made this kind of mistake as well.)

By that logic, Breakdown is more than justified in attacking and trying to steal energy. He "needs a recharge"... his supplies of fuel are scarce. He has a right to survive, does he not?

There is a difference between one party having a right to something and another having the obligation to provide it. Breakdown needs energy. The humans need energy. Both are acting sensibly. Both have a precedent for hostility that pretty well eliminates any prospect for working together.

And, why bother taking a prisoner whose incarceration adds no value, when there is no obligation (based on previous interaction) to be merciful? Why should the humans expend resources to sustain Breakdown in captivity (at cost) when it is worth a (presumably expensive) fight to keep Breakdown from stealing resources?

Again, the important thing to remember here is that there is no obligation based on precedent or anything else for the humans to show mercy.

To be fair, we don't know his track record prior to the attack on the power station. We've never seen him do anything before. And you can't just go gunning people down because they will potentially commit crimes.

Why is Prowl obligated, or even think he is obligated, to help an enemy?

Guilt must be established. Otherwise we may as well have vigilantes administer whatever retribution they feel like with no overriding standard. That leaves far greater room for an error to be made, and unlike areas where an error might be undone, if life is taken in error, that's it. There's no chance to undo the mistake. Choices regarding life and death demand a higher standard for that reason alone.

Breakdown was right there, trying to steal the energy.

Either way, warfare and civil law are two different things.

Even if one argues that punitive raids against TFs would be wrong, killing Breakdown would have been self-defense.

If the humans start indiscriminately killing Transformers, it would most certainly rebound on the Autobots at some point. There's good reason not to just sit back and allow that to happen.

The Autobots could just stay out of sight and let the humans get it out of their system by attacking more obvious Decepticons. (Costa has promised a good reason for the Autobots not doing the sensible thing and just leaving Earth.) They could even pitch in a bit.

I'll take "Heroic" Autobots over "Pragmatic" ones.

Why does heroism have to be conflated with stupidity though? Conversely, why is being rational being conflated with being bad?

The problem with the movie Autobots is that they got off on it. Sideswipe and Ironhide were laughing like athletes, and Prime had that "Dirty Harry" moment. Had Prime just shot Demolishor and Sideswipe just killed Sideways, that scene would have been much easier to defend.


Dom
-might want to use this for a future panel.

And an argument from months ago is solved.

You know, maybe I have been looking at this all wrong.

Spoiler

Rather than saying "Thundercracker is not as important as Barry Allen and thus his return is not worth dropping the book for", maybe it would be better to say "a book with this kind of writing might not be worth my time and money".

I find it ironic that while the writers and artists are promising "big things", the last "big things" are being undone.

I have never seriously considered dropping a mass market TF book before. Even when "Energon" got aimless, (right before DW went under), it was not bad enough to deter me from picking it up. This one might actually be worse than Furman's "Beast Wars" comic.


This is arguably strike 2. But, if I discount "Continuum", it is strike one. I will still give "Wreckers" and "Bumblebee" a chance. And, Figueroa's art *might* be enough to keep me in if I am buying TF comics anyway.

But, considering that "Transformers" is the *only* ongoing title I will be picking up (unless I add one, which is unlikely), my comic reading days may well be numbered.

Dom
-strike 1.....because I am generous and sentimental.

Dominic wrote:What is wrong with a TF discussion pitching high?

Fair enough. At least the book is provoking some thought, right?

The objective standard would be "what works".

That could never be anything but subjective, because it changes from instance to instance.

A defeated oppnonent who is just going to come back and cause more problems. Why would the humans be obligated to act like the heroes from old cartoon, who just shrug when the bad guys retreat, rather than running them into the ground. (Actually, the bad guys made this kind of mistake as well.)

Again, who's advocating letting Breakdown go? They can't capture and imprison him? Why are "kill him" or "let him get away" the only two options here?

And, why bother taking a prisoner whose incarceration adds no value, when there is no obligation (based on previous interaction) to be merciful? Why should the humans expend resources to sustain Breakdown in captivity (at cost) when it is worth a (presumably expensive) fight to keep Breakdown from stealing resources?

Again, the important thing to remember here is that there is no obligation based on precedent or anything else for the humans to show mercy.

Prowl apparently feels otherwise. Whether you think his decision stupid or not, he feels it's wrong for the humans to start executing Transformers.

You make a fair point about their point of view. Considering how many humans the Decepticons killed, their reaction is understandable.

Why is Prowl obligated, or even think he is obligated, to help an enemy?

Well, we'll have to see if more of his reasoning is revealed or not.

Guilt must be established. Otherwise we may as well have vigilantes administer whatever retribution they feel like with no overriding standard. That leaves far greater room for an error to be made, and unlike areas where an error might be undone, if life is taken in error, that's it. There's no chance to undo the mistake. Choices regarding life and death demand a higher standard for that reason alone.

Breakdown was right there, trying to steal the energy.

Either way, warfare and civil law are two different things.

Even if one argues that punitive raids against TFs would be wrong, killing Breakdown would have been self-defense.

If the humans still see themselves as being at war, then that would explain their actions. Prowl apparently doesn't see it from the same perspective.