The Problem with the Zhodani

[aramis]

I am not schooled in philosophy or whatever this idea is. If it is a repeat of something else maybe I heard elsewhere and forgot, sorry.

I see freedom and slavery as a spectrum of the idea of agency. There are degrees of ranging from from complete and absolute where I can think and do what I wish regardless of consequence and if there is consequence, meh, so what, I don't suffer from it and you cannot stop me. At the other end is complete slavery where control of my body and even my thoughts have been usurped entirely as in being brainwashed. Along that spectrum there are impediments to absolute freedom, most are voluntary impediments: "I won't (insert activity here), because friends / family / work / society will be hurt / angry / (name it). " going down to increasing coercion and punishment until finally you have no agency, even to chosing to die.

Sort of got this idea from Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"

It is a useful axiom; some slaves in the US north in 1850 had more freedoms than free black men in Georgia in 1850.

It is also worth noting that many cultures and religions do NOT value it. Modern China has a disconnect: the state absolutely does not value agency of the individual, while traditional Chinese culture only values it to the amount it allows providing for one's family and improving one's station. But many Chinese nationals do not hold to either of those...

 

[daryen]

You're imposing your modernist view as a universal absolute.
Good and evil are not universal absolutes in the world we live in.

I admit I am being absolutist regarding slavery. I don't apologize for that. And saying slavery is wrong isn't particularly modern. However, I am admitting I could be wrong about it being evil. But I am insisting on at least a little consistency. If those who believed slavery was fine fine and dandy of an institution were not wrong, then those who today believe it is wrong are incorrect. Slavery is either a good thing or a bad thing. So, if it wasn't wrong then, it isn't wrong now. We're just deluding ourselves today.

In the last 100 years, homosexuality has gone from being considered a mental illness, a moral flaw (and one of the most serious sins), and homosexual sexual acts a crime, to it being a protected class in most of the English speaking world.

In the last 100 years, mixed ethnicity couples have gone from being unlawful and considered evil by many in a significant portion of the English speaking world to being not uncommon.

Actually these are absolutely perfect examples. We changed our attitudes about these issues because we found out that our prior attitudes were wrong. Now that we understand that, we have changed our approach. Not because the old attitudes were fine and we changed our views, but because the old attitudes were wrong and we finally realized that.

But there is no universality to those past correligionists.

Right. But that is because to those old religions, if you were not a coreligionist, you basically weren't human. The goal is to get to the point of everyone's humanity is recognized. Let me quote something someone else said from above I can agree with:

Universal Morality: to hold other sentient beings as valueless, is evil. To hold other sentient beings as having value, is not evil.

In the past, groups thought it was just dandy to enslave, brutalize, murder, and do awful things to other groups because those other groups were viewed as being essentially not human. As the definition of who qualifies expands, so do the expectations.

Honestly, I never though saying slavery is wrong and has always been wrong would be even in the least controversial. That's like finding out that saying murder, forced mutilation, and rape are wrong and has always been wrong is controversial.

 

[Grav_Moped]

In the past, groups thought it was just dandy to enslave, brutalize, murder, and do awful things to other groups because those other groups were viewed as being essentially not human. As the definition of who qualifies expands, so do the expectations.

This should be a moral and ethical matter, but in practice across history it's been a political one.

And it's not a given that the definition will keep expanding, nor that it might not contract eventually.

You can deduce a workable structure of innate human rights from first principles, but they aren't necessarily self-enforcing. The enforcement is through society, and politics is the means by which societies authoritatively allocate values.

Honestly, I never though saying slavery is wrong and has always been wrong would be even in the least controversial. That's like finding out that saying murder, forced mutilation, and rape are wrong and has always been wrong is controversial.

Within the context of today's Western Civilization, it's not (legitimately) controversial. The issue seems to be whether or not to apply modern values to historical systems, and whether to consider modern values as more valid than the ones in place at the time.

This is complicated by the fact that the historic values were not unquestioned at the time, so there was a "right" and "wrong" side of the issues even then -- even if the "right" side wasn't in a position to influence outcomes. (Unless one wants to posit that both sides are wrong?)

 

[Spinward Flow]

I admit I am being absolutist regarding slavery. I don't apologize for that. And saying slavery is wrong isn't particularly modern. However, I am admitting I could be wrong about it being evil. But I am insisting on at least a little consistency. If those who believed slavery was fine fine and dandy of an institution were not wrong, then those who today believe it is wrong are incorrect. Slavery is either a good thing or a bad thing. So, if it wasn't wrong then, it isn't wrong now. We're just deluding ourselves today.

The problem that you're running into is attempting to apply a One Size Fits All categorization onto something regardless of context in an attempt to sustain an absolute.

And what you're finding out is that deliberately angling for that kind of absolutist viewpoint is great in theory, but incredibly myopic (to the point of deliberate self-delusion) when put to the test across the rich tapestry of (actual) human history.

Attempting to apply a single set of values judgements to ALL of human history is a folly of the first order. You need to weigh the value systems of different cultures and societies from within the context and values of those societies.

Or to put it another way ... people who live in glass houses need curtains! (or words to that effect ... I think)



However, we are not the first people in the world to wrestle with the notion of what is right ... and what is wrong ... nor will we be the last.
As evidence, I offer these two powerful performances in the Star Trek TNG episode S2E09 ... Measure of a Man.
I personally cannot watch these scenes and remain unmoved by them ... and what they mean ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

The problem that you're running into is attempting to apply a One Size Fits All categorization onto something regardless of context in an attempt to sustain an absolute.

And what you're finding out is that deliberately angling for that kind of absolutist viewpoint is great in theory, but incredibly myopic (to the point of deliberate self-delusion) when put to the test across the rich tapestry of (actual) human history.

Attempting to apply a single set of values judgements to ALL of human history is a folly of the first order. You need to weigh the value systems of different cultures and societies from within the context and values of those societies.

I disagree. You most certainly can apply modern perspectives to historical structures. And by and large, looking back, most of history involved varying (and often inhumane) degrees of unfairness and injustice as we'd see it now (and in fairness, the contemporary world has its issues too).

But there were degrees, and progress (as we -- for large values of "we" -- see it now) and that's important too!

 

[mike wightman]

If you apply modern sensibilities to history then you will not understand history.

 

[aramis]

If you apply modern sensibilities to history then you will not understand history.

And if you apply European or North American typical value systems to African or east Asian cultures, you will almost always predict wrong how they're going to react, agin due to lack of understanding.

And, simply put, in looking at CT/MT Alien Modules in Traveller, if you take absolutist morality to them, you're missing the point of them completely. None of them are there to be villains. They're their to be Barely Playable cultures... with notably different moral/ethical norms. To create a tapestry of aliens that arechallenging to play and complex enough to wrap campaigns around.

The Zho are not evil. They ARE different. And they take a collectivist good at an expense of allowed individuality.
Technically, so do many religions.

And Grav Moped, I think you missed my point in re religions. Those are the closest to universal beliefs that exist in the sphere of human existence. Its not that they dehummanized others, its that anything more nuanced is not universal. Thos are the common denominator of current world religions. (Several major world religions still hold that non-believers are not equal. Going further in detail here would serve no value.)

The only thing I see moral absolutism as good for is starting wars. It's started enough.

 

[mike wightman]

I agree with you completely.

 

[daryen]

And if you apply European or North American typical value systems to African or east Asian cultures, you will almost always predict wrong how they're going to react, agin due to lack of understanding.

Do note that I completely and totally agree with this. You have to understand another culture in order to be able to effectively interact with it. Modern American history is replete with examples showing this NOT happening.

So, if you encounter a culture that ritualistically enslaves a third of their population based on the straightness of their hair, ritualistically removes the eyes of a quarter of their population because of the day of the week they were born on, and snaps the neck of every tenth baby born in a community, you have to understand their culture and why they do things in order to have any kind of meaningful interaction. (To include what they believe the skin patterns mean, what that day of the week means, and even what a "week" is to them.) I fully understand and endorse that.

But that still doesn't make those three things any less wrong.

 

[mike wightman]

But that still doesn't make those three things any less wrong.

According to you and your moral code (and mine to be honest). Who is to say you are in the right? There is no good an evil without humankind deciding on the parameters.

They are not wrong to them, they are wrong to you (and me). Many African countries and cultures still practice slavery, female genital mutilation, child sacrifice to ward off evil spirits.
Oddly enough those same cultures view our murder of unborn babies to be evil...

You can only judge another culture as evil if you consider your own to be good and your moral code to be superior to theirs, have you spotted where this falls down yet? The self righteous view of superior morality is evil in and of itself because it provides justification for the atrocities you will commit in the name of your morality.

 

[daryen]

According to you and your moral code (and mine to be honest). Who is to say you are in the right? There is no good an evil without humankind deciding on the parameters.

I am admittedly taking the assumption that at least the basis of "our" moral code is at least mostly correct. I also admit I could easily be wrong.

However, to answer the question of "who is to say I am in the right?", that leads to my follow-on question. Both the anti-slaver and pro-slaver can't both be right. So, if I, as an anti-slaver am wrong, then that means the pro-slaver is right. *Someone* has to be correct and if it isn't the anti-slaver position, then that means slavery is OK and fighting against it is fundamentally wrong. Someone has to be correct. Who is it?

Changing to something even more extreme, if child-sacrifice isn't wrong, then why get mad about it now? If our moral standing on the subject is wrong, then why hold to it? I'm obviously missing something ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Both the anti-slaver and pro-slaver can't both be right. So, if I, as an anti-slaver am wrong, then that means the pro-slaver is right. *Someone* has to be correct and if it isn't the anti-slaver position, then that means slavery is OK and fighting against it is fundamentally wrong. Someone has to be correct. Who is it?

Has it occurred to you that the "correct" answer ... is that neither party in your question has a monopoly on being correct?

 

[McPerth]

I am admittedly taking the assumption that at least the basis of "our" moral code is at least mostly correct. I also admit I could easily be wrong.

Everyone thinks his moral code is correct. And probably have their part of right, if it keeps the society surviving and advancing, as this is the main reason for moral codes to exist.

Probably, in the future, some of our "right" acts today will be seen as "evil" as the things Aramis told that have changed in the last 150 years

that neither party in your question

I'd say neither party in any question.

 

[Dragoner]

A lot of Slavs don't like the anglo world using their name as a people in a negative manner.

Per-Zho's I was running a future campaign set 75 years after the events of 1248, some of the material has been uploaded to the wiki; but I remember having discussions with Don at the time, iirc he was writing the Zho book for MgT1 then. He said, and that Marc agreed, I think, everyone would be psionic in the future, something like that (which was statistically supported, I think, running the numbers). To me the whole of psi was a bit woo, so I said to myself in my campaign world that psi was part of a quantum computer built by the Ancients, an operating system, except the Empress Wave, being a normal wave (they happen routinely every few million years) through quantum fields, shorted out the system. This, and the attack by the Black Ships (Guild Droyne) caused the Consulate to collapse. Then I ran it like a post-apocalypse Zho setting, with a large diaspora.

 

[Grav_Moped]

If you apply modern sensibilities to history then you will not understand history.

I'm looking at it from a present context because my ethics are informed by millennia of philosophy. Or, to put it plainly, we know better now. And as McPerth notes, we may well know even better in the future (though political -- in the largest sense, rather than any nation-level party -- forces may thwart how that knowledge is acted on).

History itself can and should also be evaluated in its contemporaneous context because that's how it was seen when it was "current events".

 

[Condottiere]

Slavery could also be time served, or you can buy yourself out of it; slaves might have rights, or at least, a code of conduct was expected of the owner and the overseers.

As a gladiator, you had value; if you got condemned to the salt mines, you're screwed.

It's really too complex to apply one formula to what could be described as mostly involuntary servitude, it comes down more to treatment and lifestyle, and guarantees that maintain those.

 

[McPerth]

But in the top of all this, my take is Zhodani proles are not slaves. They have most rights citizens have.

They can advance in their careers, own property, move wherever they want (probably even outside the Colnsulate, thought few would dare to adventure among "unscrupulous liars" outside) and so on. The only things they cannot do is to change caste and to vote.

IIRC, in Starship Troopers world, only veterans are full citizens and have voting right, the rest of the population are contributors, but aside from vote they have full rights...

 

[Fovean]

But in the top of all this, my take is Zhodani proles are not slaves. They have most rights citizens have.

Yes, I feel the same way. As I mentioned upthread, I see Zhodani mind-wipes as a necessary “evil” for their society. It is only used when other options are failing, or in extreme circumstances.

So many seem to see this process as something akin to American 50’s-60’s era psychotherapy where any personality deviance or difficulty results in aggressive electro-shock therapy or massive dosages of anti-psychotics drugs. I don’t see it that way; if that were the case the Consulate would likely be much smaller, extremely unstable and hemorrhaging population into the Imperium and the Extents. Clearly the majority of Zhodani are fine with the situation and don’t live in fear.

And really, the comparison to slavery is… strained at best. I have yet to find anything that indicates the Zhodani population are unwilling to live like they do, or are unable to exercise freedoms that are denied to true slaves; slaves being, per the Imperial definition IIRC, chattel property.

 

[McPerth]

As I mentioned upthread, I see Zhodani mind-wipes as a necessary “evil” for their society.

And that's another thing I believe wrong. I don't believe brainwashing to be usual, and when needed, they see it as a surgery, something distasteful if looked by the means and painful to endure but, necessary to keep health

I beleive the use of telepathy to keep society stable is more in the way of knowing what people really thinks, akin of current polls IRL (but quite more effective) to help the government take decisions (in this way, they have quite more to "say" to their governments than the 3I, just to give an example), and when more individualized, to see what would really help the affected person. The prole in the example given in CT:AM4 can have been brainwashed when he returns, but I find more likely he has been treated, and a better job for him being looked for.

And not only because they may be more or less good or evil, but because it's probably cheaper and more effective.

This aside, as I understand their society and ethics, I guess there will not take long for some of them to see that if brainwashing must become routine for the good of the society, maybe it's the society who is mentally ill and must be cured...

 

[Spinward Flow]

if brainwashing must become routine for the good of the society, maybe it's the society who is mentally ill and must be cured...

Bingo.