TF Views

The question is whether or not it was justified from a moral standpoint, eg: could you call it "evil" from the Predacons' point of view? It started because I was wondering if the Predacons could really be considered "Bad Guys" in any respect other than toy packaging. Their sole act that could really be considered "evil" was the attempt to wipe out the humans. So I called it into question, and well, here we are.

I mean really Sparky, the only reason you're really siding against us on this issue is because these are humans we're talking about. If there was some TF story where there was this race of "evil" aliens who consistently helped the Decepticons, and then the Autobots wound up going back in time, found that they had the chance to get rid of these "evil" aliens before their race evolved and propogated throughout the universe to eventually assist the Decepticons, and thus did so, I wager you wouldn't have a problem with it.

And of course, this all goes back to my original issue about how aggrivating it is that the sides are so definitively portrayed as "Good" and "Evil". Can we PLEEEEAAAASE have fully morally ambiguous/complex Cybertronian factions for once? This is WAR we're talking about, after all.

God, I just realized that even the Movie did this! How the hell was Megatron the Bad Guy there? He wanted the AllSpark to...be evil with? Ugh...

Animated? All we know is that there was a war in the past! We don't know what it was over, what divided the two armies! All we know is that the Decepticons lost, and are therefore the "Bad Guys".

Sonofa... I'm actually *this* close to hating all Transformers fiction now that I just realized it's had this giant gaping hole in its logic for the last twenty-five years...

BWprowl wrote:I mean really Sparky, the only reason you're really siding against us on this issue is because these are humans we're talking about.

Don't presume to tell me what my reasons are. What I've been arguing and what I believe is that genocide is wrong. It doesn't matter what species it is.

BWprowl wrote:The question is whether or not it was justified from a moral standpoint, eg: could you call it "evil" from the Predacons' point of view?

From the Preds point of view? No, your original question was:

BWprowl wrote:I'm calling this one, as I've been thinking about this whole thing ALL DAY. How exactly are the sides in Beast Wars presented as 'Good' and 'Evil' short of outright statements like Megatron's oh-so-stoopid Agenda line? Seriously, name an action the Predacons took in Beast Wars that would be considered 'Evil'.

And then you said wiping out the humans wouldn't be evil to Megatron's point of view, to which I disagreed. It doesn't justify his actions just because he doesn't see it as wrong. Killing innocents? Trying to wipe out a species just so their descendants don't help his ancestors enemies? Shooting bot's who are defenseless in stasis lock? Recklessly trying to change history to advance his own personal goals against the better judgment of his own government? And you say his actions aren't evil?

[quote="Sparky Prime]

And then you said wiping out the humans wouldn't be evil to Megatron's point of view, to which I disagreed. It doesn't justify his actions just because he doesn't see it as wrong. Killing innocents? Trying to wipe out a species just so their descendants don't help his ancestors enemies? Shooting bot's who are defenseless in stasis lock? Recklessly trying to change history to advance his own personal goals against the better judgment of his own government? And you say his actions aren't evil?

[/quote]

But, how much of Megatron's plan was to advance his *personal* goals rather than Idealogical goals? In "Agenda" part III, Megatron says he is acting "in memory of the Decepticons, for the glory of the Predacons...", which sounds more like idealogy than self-interest. Given that he is alone, the speech is more for his benefit than anyone elses. Acting in the interests of one's own faction is much different than acting out of self-interest.

Wiping out a species with a track record of being dangerous is a fair move. (Really, what do you care more about, people or say....mosquitos? If it was determined that we could safely wipe out mosquito, would any reasonable person complain? Is it even wrong to wipe out a threatening group of people? Granted, idealogical traits are more fluid than species traits, but one way to stop a dangerous idealogy is to wipe out its adherents.) Saying "genocide is a wrong unto itself" is too easy. Tell me *why* it is wrong, either in general terms (difficult to do), or in a specific case (likely easier).

As for going against the judgement of one's own government, I am no anarchist, (far from it in fact), but it is not inherently evil to go against a government that is too impotent and corrupt to serve its people. (It could be evil in the sense that lost infrastructure may cost lives later. But, there have been, and still are, plenty of revolutionary types who see the loss of life as being a price worth paying.)

The time travel element, seperate from the genocide question, adds a new dimension to the question. Altering history is both destructive and dangerous. (Regardless of the desired, or even achieved, results, altering history is destructive by virtue of the fact that something is being undone and replaced with something else. Of course, depending on how awful the current status quo is, it might be worth it to completely blow everything to hell.

Shooting an unarmed opponent makes sense. What is more important, defeating them "honorably" or effectively? The point of shooting them is to ensure that they do not get up to threaten you. Why give them a chance to do exactly the thing you are trying to prevent?

And of course, this all goes back to my original issue about how aggrivating it is that the sides are so definitively portrayed as "Good" and "Evil". Can we PLEEEEAAAASE have fully morally ambiguous/complex Cybertronian factions for once? This is WAR we're talking about, after all.

The Unicron Trilogy supplies some of this. More than once, Optimus Prime took an imperious attitude towards Minicons who were allied with, but not part of, the Autobots.

If Prime wants to say the kids cannot associate with Autobots, that is one thing. But, Prime had no right to block them from seeing the MInicons. Yes, Prime would have an interest in keeping the Minicons safe. But, Megatron would also have an interest in capturing Minicons. Both sets of interests are perfectly sensible, even if they disregard the interests of the Minicons.

And, their were nasty Minicons as well, in the form of Dualor and his cronies. Dualor may not have been a nice guy. But, he did take care of his people.

Beast Machines also had prominent moral questions.

Still I do see Prowl's point. Very often, the bad guys are the bad guys because somebody said so.

Animated? All we know is that there was a war in the past! We don't know what it was over, what divided the two armies! All we know is that the Decepticons lost, and are therefore the "Bad Guys".

We know the Autobots beat the Decepticons, and exiled most, if not all, of them. And, we know that the Autobots are willing to discard "tainted" members, such as those with organic traits. That is ethically dodgy. (I am sure Skir and co intend for it to be. But, the Autobots lose a bit of moral high-ground for it.)


Dom
-feels better after having a breakfast of scrambled eggs and toast. (Of course, that cost money while the donut was free.......)

Dominic wrote:But, how much of Megatron's plan was to advance his *personal* goals rather than Idealogical goals? In "Agenda" part III, Megatron says he is acting "in memory of the Decepticons, for the glory of the Predacons...", which sounds more like idealogy than self-interest. Given that he is alone, the speech is more for his benefit than anyone elses. Acting in the interests of one's own faction is much different than acting out of self-interest.

He took the name Megatron. What does that tell you about his goals?

Wiping out a species with a track record of being dangerous is a fair move. (Really, what do you care more about, people or say....mosquitos? If it was determined that we could safely wipe out mosquito, would any reasonable person complain? Is it even wrong to wipe out a threatening group of people? Granted, idealogical traits are more fluid than species traits, but one way to stop a dangerous idealogy is to wipe out its adherents.) Saying "genocide is a wrong unto itself" is too easy. Tell me *why* it is wrong, either in general terms (difficult to do), or in a specific case (likely easier).

Why is genocide wrong? I have said several times now that I doubt a species would continue to be a threat long before you managed to wipe them all out, and is therefore not necessary to take it that far.

Would people complain if we wiped out mosquito's? You bet. Like them or not, they are a part of the ecosystem and so you would have people arguing against it for various reasons. And just because a species has a tendency to be dangerous isn't enough of a reason to wipe them out.

As for going against the judgement of one's own government, I am no anarchist, (far from it in fact), but it is not inherently evil to go against a government that is too impotent and corrupt to serve its people. (It could be evil in the sense that lost infrastructure may cost lives later. But, there have been, and still are, plenty of revolutionary types who see the loss of life as being a price worth paying.)

True, you aren't always going to agree with your government but my point was more that even they didn't like what Megatron was doing and thought he was dangerous.

Shooting an unarmed opponent makes sense. What is more important, defeating them "honorably" or effectively? The point of shooting them is to ensure that they do not get up to threaten you. Why give them a chance to do exactly the thing you are trying to prevent?

Optimus Prime wasn't just unarmed, he was comatose. Would you shoot a guy who is in a coma?

God, I just realized that even the Movie did this! How the hell was Megatron the Bad Guy there? He wanted the AllSpark to...be evil with? Ugh...

Hmm, read Defiance, methinks we may some moral justification in there somewhere.

Even if it's SPOILERS: An ancient artifact made him Threevil.

Animated? All we know is that there was a war in the past! We don't know what it was over, what divided the two armies! All we know is that the Decepticons lost, and are therefore the "Bad Guys".

Heh, now THAT is moral ambiguity at its finest - The losers are always The Bad Guys, because the winners get to write history. Magnus and friends are not the nicest bunch.

Saying "genocide is a wrong unto itself" is too easy. Tell me *why* it is wrong, either in general terms (difficult to do), or in a specific case (likely easier).

From a purely scientific point of view, genocide is an act of evil because it denies the society performing the genocide the chance to study the eradicated group, thus denying them knowledge and potential advancement.

Even from the point of view of the Decepticons, humanity was of use for slaves/alternate modes/energy sources to steal and assorted others. The Transformers were not significantly advanced enough at the point of waking up in '84 that humanity was of no use to them. Of course, this also ties in with that group being four million years behind the times, which is one of the biggest plotholes in TF continuity ever - we see major advancements between '84 and '05, but NOTHING happened in FOUR MILLION YEARS.

So I'd wager it'd be a select group of Cybertronians that would justify genocide on a moral level. But I'd also wager it'd fall on both sides of the faction line, since the arguments in favour of preserving other species fall more into the realm of scientific observation and ideological morality than practical advantages.

To use Dom's mosquito example: If humanity could wipe out mosquitos entirely through some new-found technology, would we? They can spread disease and are of no practical advantage to us as a species. In fact, they're a pest, and we already employ many methods to keep them at bay and/or kill them. Yet they serve a purpose in the ecosystem, and are still of value for research. Those wanting practical, immediate, instant-gratification for the advantage of themselves would push for them to be killed, while those who'd focus more on the long-term potential would clamour to save them. I feel the same applies here.

To call the genocide of another species inherantly evil is to ignore the perspective granted by them being so alien and unlike ourselves; as humans our nature is to preserve that which triggers our emotional protection instincts; we'll crush a spider with revulsion and glee but adore a kitten because the kitten has evolved to look 'cute'.

The time travel element, seperate from the genocide question, adds a new dimension to the question. Altering history is both destructive and dangerous. (Regardless of the desired, or even achieved, results, altering history is destructive by virtue of the fact that something is being undone and replaced with something else. Of course, depending on how awful the current status quo is, it might be worth it to completely blow everything to hell.

To the credit of all but Megatron and arguably Dinobot, they didn't know it was the past for some time, it was only their intention to get there. But as demonstrated by there being two moons and one being destroyed through their actions, the timeline presented in BW is one of inevitability; nothing other than what happened could have happened in that timeline, since we already know what the outcome is.

Shooting an unarmed opponent makes sense. What is more important, defeating them "honorably" or effectively? The point of shooting them is to ensure that they do not get up to threaten you. Why give them a chance to do exactly the thing you are trying to prevent?

Also worth noting: Dinobot, being most concerned about honour and the most traditional of the Predacons despite his changing factions, would be the least likely to shoot an unarmed opponent.

He took the name Megatron. What does that tell you about his goals?

Fair call, this is also supported by DW continuity showing him accessing the entire G1 timeline as the frame story for MTMTE. But! Considering Dreamwave's current state of flux as canon, and the changes shown in MTMTE vs. G1 comics and show continuity, it can be argued that he didn't see an entirely accurate account of history..

Why is genocide wrong? I have said several times now that I doubt a species would continue to be a threat long before you managed to wipe them all out, and is therefore not necessary to take it that far.

Would people complain if we wiped out mosquito's? You bet. Like them or not, they are a part of the ecosystem and so you would have people arguing against it for various reasons. And just because a species has a tendency to be dangerous isn't enough of a reason to wipe them out.

I agree with this, there isn't necessarily a practical need to eradicate a species entirely to remove their threat. Although, depending on their resourcefulness, it's certainly possible the survivors would plot to retaliate, the energy expended to monitor the remnants of the species and ensure they didn't could be argued to be a bigger waste of resources than the advantages of keeping some alive. "I'm sick of guard duty, can't we just kill them all and be done with it?" There is a lot of concern for the practical and immediate advantages of taking a certain morally dubious action, which is where the grey area lies. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I am saying I can see why it would be argued that way.

As for the ecosystem concerns, as mentioned above, I agree with that too. Although the arguments with that in mind would surely be less convincing to the masses if said species were part of an ecosystem not from Earth. Out of sight, out of mind..

Dominic wrote:Beast Machines also had prominent moral questions.

BM has been the best series to handle this whole conundrum, in my opinion. It wasn't a story of Good vs. Evil so much as Clashing Ideologies, separated only by their levels of fanaticism (as evidenced by Primal realizing he'd gone too far with it at the beginning of Season 2). It wasn't so much a case of seeing which side was 'right' as it was in seeing which side won out, and what that constituted for the race. That even a lot of the people watching the show didn't agree with the Maximals just made it work even better.

On the opposite end, a lot of the G1 stuff, particularly the post-movie stories, at least did a good job of clearly defining the 'good' and 'evil' in the sides. Of course, when the leader of one faction is a clinically insane, aspiring universal tyrant, it's pretty easy to paint the other side as 'good'.

onslaught86 wrote:Hmm, read Defiance, methinks we may some moral justification in there somewhere.

Even if it's SPOILERS: An ancient artifact made him Threevil.

It is kinda funny that as soon as I called The Movie's moral bases into question, Defiance came out with the apparent intent to disprove my misgivings (It's like the title was directed at ME!). Although I agree with you that Megatron's proposed "origin" here looks to be lame as hell. Aw well, we've been doing so good for TF comics lately, I guess they can't all be winners. At the very least, I really liked the art in that issue.

That even a lot of the people watching the show didn't agree with the Maximals just made it work even better.

Heh, definitely. Extremes are the true evil! Go Skir.

On the opposite end, a lot of the G1 stuff, particularly the post-movie stories, at least did a good job of clearly defining the 'good' and 'evil' in the sides. Of course, when the leader of one faction is a clinically insane, aspiring universal tyrant, it's pretty easy to paint the other side as 'good'.

And then we had the likes of Cyclonus, who did Dinobot before Dinobot did. Cyclonus was such the man.

At the very least, I really liked the art in that issue.

I felt that was very hit or miss, Khanna and Some Other Guy apparently worked on it together. It's inconsistent, and ranges from awesome to lame in the space of a page.

onslaught86 wrote:

At the very least, I really liked the art in that issue.

I felt that was very hit or miss, Khanna and Some Other Guy apparently worked on it together. It's inconsistent, and ranges from awesome to lame in the space of a page.

I'm mainly remembering the good parts, but I'll concede that there were some rough spots (the panel arrangements got particularly akward and amateurish). Still there were places that I really liked, namely where I could look at big group shots and easily identify all the characters involved without having to squint or puzzle it out with only a color scheme to go on. Very bright, clear, etc. Too bad the story it's attached too is so mediocre.

He took the name Megatron. What does that tell you about his goals?

He was aiming for historic resonance. What is the big deal? I named one of my cats after William T. Sherman, my favorite general. There are likely a good many hill-billies who would whine about that.

Look at modern Russia. Putin frequently evokes Stalin. What does that say about his motives? Most likely, he is just trying to evoke a point in Russia's history when the country was strong. I am pretty sure Putin does not want a return to Marxism, or idiotic zero-sum conflicts that the USSR tended to lose.

Why is genocide wrong? I have said several times now that I doubt a species would continue to be a threat long before you managed to wipe them all out, and is therefore not necessary to take it that far.

And, in this case, we agreed that the Predacons were unable to correctly assess the threat potential of humans. Thus, the fact that "people are no longer a threat" stops being an issue because the Predacons/Decepticons simply would not see it.

Would people complain if we wiped out mosquito's? You bet. Like them or not, they are a part of the ecosystem and so you would have people arguing against it for various reasons. And just because a species has a tendency to be dangerous isn't enough of a reason to wipe them out.

But, what if mosquitos were not a necessary part of the eco-system? What if they were simply an obstacle? In the case of the Decepticons/Predacons, the nuisance species (people) is not necessary in the long-term, but has proven devastating in the short-term.

True, you aren't always going to agree with your government but my point was more that even they didn't like what Megatron was doing and thought he was dangerous.

Of course the Tripredacus Council thought Megatron was dangerous. He was out to end the party for them. He was going to upset their apple-cart completely. There are some, both today and in history, (including Thomas Jefferson), who would say that revolution is necessary and healthy. By that logic, the Tripredacus Council and Maximals are more evil than the upstart Megatron.

The fact is that the Tripredacus Council faced the prospect of a material loss should Megatron succeed, so they obviously would have a problem with him.

Optimus Prime wasn't just unarmed, he was comatose. Would you shoot a guy who is in a coma?

If the comatose guy was likely to be a threat to me and mine later, you bet I would.

From a purely scientific point of view, genocide is an act of evil because it denies the society performing the genocide the chance to study the eradicated group, thus denying them knowledge and potential advancement.

But, if the dominant's groups aims are not scientific, then why do they care? Granted, the genocide could be wasteful. But, it is also wasteful to allow a vermin species to run wild over one's interests.

To use Dom's mosquito example: If humanity could wipe out mosquitos entirely through some new-found technology, would we? They can spread disease and are of no practical advantage to us as a species. In fact, they're a pest, and we already employ many methods to keep them at bay and/or kill them. Yet they serve a purpose in the ecosystem, and are still of value for research. Those wanting practical, immediate, instant-gratification for the advantage of themselves would push for them to be killed, while those who'd focus more on the long-term potential would clamour to save them. I feel the same applies here.

The "cute" factor is a big part of it. The same principle also applies to babies. (As a professor of mine once put it, "there is plenty to dislike about a newborn".) But, there is also a question of commonality and social condidtioning. Pigs are kind of cute, but most people eat them. Rabbits are cute, and they are rodents, and they are food.

Most people tend to get along better with predators, domesticated and otherwise, as we tend to think like them. They are a bit smarter than food animals. More people care about dogs or cats than say....lamb or rabbit.

There is a lot of concern for the practical and immediate advantages of taking a certain morally dubious action, which is where the grey area lies. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I am saying I can see why it would be argued that way.

The case for wiping them out, and getting out of guard duty, would be that the resources being applies to guard duty could be more effeciently spent elsewhere. Along similar lines, the obligation of the party bosses is to take care of their own, not to take care of others at the expense of others. If the guard duty provides needed jobs, that is one thing. Pump-priming, or pork-barrel spending, is one thing. But, spending money to provide succor for a hostile group is another.


Dom
-thinks this is why the internet exists.

Hmm, read Defiance, methinks we may some moral justification in there somewhere.

I am planning to review "Defiance" in the next few weeks in the movie comics thread. Lets move this part of the discussion there.

Dominic wrote:He was aiming for historic resonance. What is the big deal?

"I am that which is, which was, and is yet to come. And you will know my name is Megatron when I lay my vengeance upon you".
Megatron said he chose the name from the Covenant of Primus remember? He didn't choose it for historic resonance, he chose it apparently because he believes he has a divine destiny with the name.

And, in this case, we agreed that the Predacons were unable to correctly assess the threat potential of humans. Thus, the fact that "people are no longer a threat" stops being an issue because the Predacons/Decepticons simply would not see it.

And to that I've said, just because the Decepticons/Predacons couldn't seem to figure out how to handle to humans still doesn't justify wiping them all out. Really, how often did the Decepticons deal head on with the humans if they were such a problem? Perhaps they should have tried being a little more direct.

But, what if mosquitos were not a necessary part of the eco-system? What if they were simply an obstacle? In the case of the Decepticons/Predacons, the nuisance species (people) is not necessary in the long-term, but has proven devastating in the short-term.

How do you know if something will be necessary in the long-term or not? The humans shared a great deal with the Autobots which, in the long-term, helped Cybertron as a whole. With out the humans, who knows what state Cybertron might be in by the Beast Era. Actually, Cybertron probably wouldn't exist anymore if the Autobots hadn't had help from the humans.

Of course the Tripredacus Council thought Megatron was dangerous. He was out to end the party for them. He was going to upset their apple-cart completely. There are some, both today and in history, (including Thomas Jefferson), who would say that revolution is necessary and healthy. By that logic, the Tripredacus Council and Maximals are more evil than the upstart Megatron.

Megatron didn't exactly start out looking for a revolution. He was tired of waiting for the Tripredacus Council to make their move, so he made a move of his own. And I'm not so sure a dictatorship would be a healthy revolutionary move... Absolute power corrupts, and in Megatron's case, he's already corrupt.

If the comatose guy was likely to be a threat to me and mine later, you bet I would.

Pretty sure Megatron was in the clear there given Optimus Prime and the Autobots is a thing of the past by his time.

Granted, the genocide could be wasteful. But, it is also wasteful to allow a vermin species to run wild over one's interests.

Genocide is wasteful. And if something is a "run wild" problem, there are other solutions to bring it under control with out completely wiping out the entire species.