Tables turned on Humanity

[True_Avery]

Lets say something evolves to get to a higher status than humans. If you don't believe in that, then lets say Aliens appear who are stronger than humans. If not even that, then lets say demons or angels appear who are stronger than humans.

 

Take a pick or make one up, but it all leads to the same question:

 

How would you convince advanced Aliens that it was morally wrong to kill humans?

 

Lets look at a few things:

-We will hunt on a full stomach to get a trophy.

-We will mass slaughter animals for food.

-We will gas and trap bugs and critters in our houses to clean up.

-We will destroy ecosystems and species to further our own aims.

-We are seemingly at the top, so even many of our religions have put us above animals.

 

Thats just how humans work. Now, what if the tables we seemingly controlled were turned on us? Aliens come out of the sky, and see us as just another rat in the attic. Just another spider on the wall. Just another animal worth hunting and/or eating. They seemingly care as much about us as we care about the random ants we happen to step on while walking down the street.

 

These Aliens or whatever are sentient. They can, for the sake of argument, communicate with us. They may, or may not have already killed humans with as much care and thought as someone ordering a steak. They choose to talk to you.

 

How would you convince advanced "unsympathetic" Aliens that it was morally wrong to kill humans?

Would you risk using a human religion? Would you explain natural rights? Would you tell them that they would have no right too? Would you explain that it was immoral to kill things?

 

"I'll just fight back with my nukes!" Is not an option. For the sake of argument, these Aliens make our nukes look like water droplets. Fighting back is not an option at all. If it must be done, all military facilities on earth have been destroyed or are being held by the invaders.

 

You have this chance to save yourself and possibly humanity, otherwise you will be killed with as much sympathy as an exterminator spraying roaches.

[Pho3nix]

I would probably join sides with the Aliens.

 

Can't think of a single reason why it would be morally wrong for them to kill us.

[mur'phon]

[Sabretooth]

I'd probably show them all the human achievements we have made, such as religion, reaching moon, scientific and philosophical advancement and what-not. Sooner or later, they will think we are real cute snap photos of us and post it on their intarwebs with funny captions like "Invisible Bike!" or "I can haz cheezburger?"

 

On the contrary, if these aliens are so very advanced and of a liberal, understanding mind, we'd proclaim stuff like our right to freedom and independence and how we would like to negotiate trade prospects with foreign planets as opposed to war. If they value democracy and liberalism as much as we do, they will let us be.

 

Naw.

[Ray Jones]

Lets look at a few things:

-We will hunt on a full stomach to get a trophy.

-We will mass slaughter animals for food.

-We will gas and trap bugs and critters in our houses to clean up.

-We will destroy ecosystems and species to further our own aims.

-We are seemingly at the top, so even many of our religions have put us above animals.

I think there are enough humans on this planet who do not fit in any of those "classifications", including me. I fail to see why people constantly whine about these issues, but they do a **** about it.

 

They seemingly care as much about us as we care about the random ants we happen to step on while walking down the street.

I do care.

 

Would you risk using a human religion?

No. Would that be of help anyway?

 

Would you explain natural rights?

What are natural rights?

 

Would you tell them that they would have no right too?

What right?

 

Would you explain that it was immoral to kill things?

Is it really immoral to kill things? Among all species out there, killing happens all the time, for several reasons. And I'd say most of them do not touch the concept of immorality in any way.

 

 

However, my argumentation would be quite simple:

 

It is "wrong" to kill humans, just as it is "wrong" to kill any other form of life. However, most forms of life need to kill life in order to survive. So, as long as they are here to eat us, there is generally nothing wrong with it. Additionally, they wouldn't do any better than humans do if they'd kill us just because we kill other lifeforms "for the fun of it" and so on.

 

 

 

Anyway, one would assume that a species able to travel space over far distances would know all that on their own.

 

Plus, I can hardly imagine to travel through space to some unknown planet and eat or kill all the species I meet there, let alone the fact than when I am able to do long time space travel, I most probably have solved the problem of never dwindling food supply long, long ago. And I think I would not be interested in resources, or occupation of land, either. Because I obviously already have enough resources and better living condition (for my species) on the ship than on any random planet.

 

Not gonna say your scenario has flaws, but there are some.

[Bee Hoon]

Ah, I'd tell them that humans will kill themselves off unless something drastic happens to turn every single one of us around. So no need to bother:p

 

In any case, it seems to me that the only argument which can be made for the humans is that not everyone falls into all those categories, as Ray Jones has pointed out. Then what would the aliens do? Wipe everyone out for the sins of some? If so...that would pretty much put them on the same level as us.

[Arcesious]

If that happened, I'd ally with the aliens, and when I have the chance, double cross in some great enough way that I could save all mankind.

[Jvstice]

I'd point out about killing being wrong when unnecessary, but that all higher life forms have to kill for food at least. Then I'd argue based on the same arguements we use for and against animal experimentation within the scientific community.

 

1) Is there a tangible benefit that comes from the harm that is done, and is the harm necessary?

 

2) Is there a way to minimize the pain and suffering inflicted? Example: We do little experimentation with chimps because their larger brains and more advanced nervous system means they can feel more pain. Instead we use many rats early on in medical experiments, then dogs, only then chimps. After that humans. If aliens are doing these attrocities on humans either for food or medical experimentation, they'd probably see the use of animals as beneficial as saving resources for the long term even if they can't be brought to a point of empathy or sympathy, though I wouldnt' hesitate to try to get them to sympathize either. But at the least I'd want them looking at us with an enlightened self interest point of view, and not as something to be wiped out.

[Web Rider]

On the contrary, if these aliens are so very advanced and of a liberal, understanding mind, we'd proclaim stuff like our right to freedom and independence and how we would like to negotiate trade prospects with foreign planets as opposed to war. If they value democracy and liberalism as much as we do, they will let us be.

 

I think this is an important note. If these aliens are so liberally advanced, it's likly they won't go around treating us like animals. If they aren't, they I honestly doubt they'd care what I have to say about humanities reasons for living.

however, in the spirit of the topic:

-We will hunt on a full stomach to get a trophy.

You might, he might, I don't. And I honestly don't care if the aliens want to hunt those people. IF I ever do hunt, I will use everything I can from my kill, none of this stuffed and mounted BS.

-We will mass slaughter animals for food.

You assume that the aliens are a animal-form of life. Perhaps they are plant based. What's my point? Only that a race needs to survive somehow, if they require human meat to live, well, I'd wonder how they managed to live so long.

-We will gas and trap bugs and critters in our houses to clean up.

I think you're getting a little strong on this "we".

-We will destroy ecosystems and species to further our own aims.

yup, pretty darn strong on "we".

-We are seemingly at the top, so even many of our religions have put us above animals.

which I'm not part of so I don't really care what religion thinks.

[JediMaster12]

It is "wrong" to kill humans, just as it is "wrong" to kill any other form of life. However, most forms of life need to kill life in order to survive. So, as long as they are here to eat us, there is generally nothing wrong with it. Additionally, they wouldn't do any better than humans do if they'd kill us just because we kill other lifeforms "for the fun of it" and so on.[/Quote]

First off that does sound like an encouragement for them to actually kill us. Yes all life must compete to flourish, blah, blah...food chain. But why state the obvious? Of course it is unwise to assume that they know something basic like this but then more likely they would.

 

This sounds a bit like a Planet of the Apes situation. The question I ask True Avery is why say there is no way to fight back. You'd be suprised at how fast people learn to use what is around them. Heck I learned how to make a bone awl that is strong enough to give a good stab into the kidney if you need to kill something. What I am saying is that it is a bit of a stretch to assume that there wouldn't be a means to fight back. Three strikes and you aren't out. There is always one more thing you can do in certain situations.

[Ray Jones]

First off that does sound like an encouragement for them to actually kill us.

Does it? It doesn't. Then again, why not?

 

Yes all life must compete to flourish, blah, blah...food chain.

No. It must not. It does.

 

But why state the obvious?

Because Avery asked what "my" arguments would sound like.

 

Of course it is unwise to assume that they know something basic like this but then more likely they would.

Hence why I said, "one would assume that a species able to travel space over far distances would know all that on their own."

[PoiuyWired]

Survival of the fittist... I mean, if we are weaker we lose the game.

 

Now it doesn't mean that we can't survive via sneaking around their world though, them stupid roaches have been doing it for eternalty.

 

Now think about humans with the ability of space travel meeting a habitable planet with some primitive sentient species. Game over for them. Why should we be anything different?

[Totenkopf]

Let's not forget, advanced does not necessarily mean enlightened. Compared to our ancestors even only 13 centuries ago, we're very advanced. Yet look how little people have changed in temperment. The ability to travel throughout space does not axiomatically mean that said lifeforms would be remotely humane.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Using the "food chain" or a moralist or less biological based excuse to avoid mass genocide of us, would be out of question. After all, if it's wrong to kill any life-form, we're serial-killers.

 

My arguments would be based on our sentience: We are self-aware, the creatures we squash every day (accidentally or not), aren't.

 

I think there are enough humans on this planet who do not fit in any of those "classifications", including me. I fail to see why people constantly whine about these issues, but they do a **** about it.

I'm sure the aliens would be kind enough to make a deep investigation on 6 billion humans and determine who does X and who does Y. True_Avery's point, I assume, was to express that the aliens would judge us not personally, but as a race.

Let's not forget, advanced does not necessarily mean enlightened.

That does depend. There's a cooperation level that's necessary to develop this kind of technology. On the event that they're like Goa'ulds, that just strips a foreign race that actually had that cooperation level, then we can assume that the same requirement goes on understanding the alien tech on their own.

[*Don*]

I would sit back and pray for a War of the Worlds solution (good ol' microscopic bacteria).

[Totenkopf]

That does depend. There's a cooperation level that's necessary to develop this kind of technology. On the event that they're like Goa'ulds, that just strips a foreign race that actually had that cooperation level, then we can assume that the same requirement goes on understanding the alien tech on their own.

 

Remember, though, cooperation in the vein of self interest does not equal a humanitarian disposition. Frankly, a society doesn't have to be humanitarian to advance technologically.

[Ray Jones]

Using the "food chain" or a moralist or less biological based excuse to avoid mass genocide of us, would be out of question. After all, if it's wrong to kill any life-form, we're serial-killers.

And if it'd be right, we'd not be serial killers? Hm. I thought it's named serial killer because of kills in series, not due to wrong or right.

 

My arguments would be based on our sentience: We are self-aware, the creatures we squash every day (accidentally or not), aren't.

Of course that kind of attitude shows clearly how we are the ones worth to survive. Also, it is pretty sure that some animals at least show signs of self-awareness.

 

That does depend. There's a cooperation level that's necessary to develop this kind of technology. On the event that they're like Goa'ulds, that just strips a foreign race that actually had that cooperation level, then we can assume that the same requirement goes on understanding the alien tech on their own.

While Goaul'd are human fiction, real aliens are not. But in case real aliens travel big distances to come here to conquer and destroy us, I doubt they will change mind, no matter what we say.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Frankly, a society doesn't have to be humanitarian to advance technologically.

Point taken. But I didn't ever said that this "cooperation" couldn't be forced on them... assuming the aliens will have greed and other human traits such as.

[True_Avery]

Wow, mot of you completely missed what I was trying to do with this thread. I generalized humanity for a -reason-. The point was that you counter arguments like that by giving examples or reasons why we are a species worth having around.

 

The point is that this Alien race would view us as simply animals.

 

True_Avery's point, I assume, was to express that the aliens would judge us not personally, but as a race.

Thank you for getting the picture.

 

Let's not forget, advanced does not necessarily mean enlightened. Compared to our ancestors even only 13 centuries ago, we're very advanced. Yet look how little people have changed in temperment. The ability to travel throughout space does not axiomatically mean that said lifeforms would be remotely humane.

Thank you.

 

I do care.

Then you are a very small amount of the population. I don't know about you, but I doubt many people go home by the end of the day, sad that they may have harmed or killed an ant accidentally by walking.

 

No. Would that be of help anyway?

I'm asking you. I was merely using an example of an argument that could be used.

 

What are natural rights?

I don't know, you tell me. I believe it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

What right?

I don't know. You tell me. I'm the one thats asking.

 

Is it really immoral to kill things? Among all species out there, killing happens all the time, for several reasons. And I'd say most of them do not touch the concept of immorality in any way.

I'm asking you if you would use the argument. Again, you have completely failed to understand what I was trying to do. I was listing things that could be used, not things I was using.

 

Plus, I can hardly imagine to travel through space to some unknown planet and eat or kill all the species I meet there, let alone the fact than when I am able to do long time space travel, I most probably have solved the problem of never dwindling food supply long, long ago. And I think I would not be interested in resources, or occupation of land, either. Because I obviously already have enough resources and better living condition (for my species) on the ship than on any random planet.

Whatever.

 

Not gonna say your scenario has flaws, but there are some.

My scenarios were examples to use. I wasn't using them specifically. Congrats on completely missing the point.

 

You might, he might, I don't. And I honestly don't care if the aliens want to hunt those people. IF I ever do hunt, I will use everything I can from my kill, none of this stuffed and mounted BS.

I was generalizing, but I think you know that. I somehow think you'd care if they started hunting you.

 

You assume that the aliens are a animal-form of life. Perhaps they are plant based. What's my point? Only that a race needs to survive somehow, if they require human meat to live, well, I'd wonder how they managed to live so long.

I didn't assume anything about them other than they are aliens coming here to either kill us or negotiate.

 

I think you're getting a little strong on this "we".

Its called generalizing, and if the aliens do happen to be like humans then they will do it.

 

yup, pretty darn strong on "we".

^

 

which I'm not part of so I don't really care what religion thinks.

Good for you. I wasn't asking that at all. I was giving a example of what you could use in your argument.

 

This sounds a bit like a Planet of the Apes situation. The question I ask True Avery is why say there is no way to fight back. You'd be suprised at how fast people learn to use what is around them. Heck I learned how to make a bone awl that is strong enough to give a good stab into the kidney if you need to kill something. What I am saying is that it is a bit of a stretch to assume that there wouldn't be a means to fight back. Three strikes and you aren't out. There is always one more thing you can do in certain situations.

I was waiting for someone to pull the Independence Day card. I don't care how many Will Smiths the Native Americans have, if you put them up against the United States Army they would lose. If you put Africa against the UN in full war, Africa would lose. If you put a full grown bodybuilder against a 2 year old, the 2 year old would lose.

 

This is not two relatively similar civilizations fighting each other in a Hollywood film. This is one far, far more advance civilization going against a much weaker one. There is no vent for Luke to shoot two missiles into. There is no huge gaping weak point for an old man to fly his plane into. There is no music to make their heads explode.

 

Bleh, never mind. This was a pointless thread from the start. People seemed far more interested in ripping my post apart instead of focusing on the point it was trying to make. Now I remember why I hate posting in this damn place.

[Totenkopf]

Seems to me the big problem becomes determining just how alien these beings are. How do they perceive the concept of morality? Are they so far advanced mentally, technologically, socially, ad nauseam that we are little more than ants to them? If they are sociopathic by human standards, is there even a point in trying?

[True_Avery]

Seems to me the big problem becomes determining just how alien these beings are. How do they perceive the concept of morality? Are they so far advanced mentally, technologically, socially, ad nauseam that we are little more than ants to them? If they are sociopathic by human standards, is there even a point in trying?

Yeah, I can see your point there. I'd like to make a standard for sake of argument, but I wouldn't personally know where to start.

[Samuel Dravis]

How to stop aliens from killing us...

 

First, of course, is simply to stay out of their way. It's unlikely they would go out of their way (wasting resources) to kill people unless they had a reason to.

 

However, if that is not possible, I imagine that we'd need to make ourselves valuable in some way - and by that I mean their definition of valuable. What kind of common ground do we have with these aliens? For example, if the aliens did not have eyes, we could not show them visual art as something interesting enough to warrant keeping us around -- so that's right out.

 

Essentially, we'd need to find out what they're interested in, what kind of resources they want (because they probably DO want something, if they came here), etc. After we've found these things out, we'd have to make ourselves interesting or useful in some way. The goal is to make them say things like "Isn't that cool how those humans make pyramids all by themselves?" in the same way that we find other animals and plants interesting and valuable because of their particular properties.

 

I think this kind of thing would give us something to negotiate with - show the aliens that we're valuable, within their framework. To do otherwise would be like saying of chess "But don't you agree that the queen is valuable?" -- when the other person thinks chess is stupid or uninteresting and just ignores you.

[Totenkopf]

Yes, I agree this would give them a utilitarian reason not to get rid of all of us. But is that the same thing as explaining why it's immoral to kill us rather than inconvenient (afterall, they'd existed up to the point they discovered us and presented us with our theorhetical dilemma).

[Samuel Dravis]

Yes, I agree this would give them a utilitarian reason not to get rid of all of us. But is that the same thing as explaining why it's immoral to kill us rather than inconvenient (afterall, they'd existed up to the point they discovered us and presented us with our theorhetical dilemma).

Again, you'd have to appeal to their morals, whatever they are. If they behave a certain way with respect to other races (not sure how you'd find out, but for the sake of argument), you could remind them that treating other races well is something they usually do, and why should they be inconsistent in our case?

 

But as for appeals to our morality: I think that is just as useless as trying to sell the value of visual art to the blind (although they might decide it is useful in some other way, i.e, your reactions to such art might be interesting to them).

 

If they simply don't value our kind of morals then there is no moral argument that would make them stop. This is true even within the human race, and I doubt that there would be any difference with aliens in that respect.

[Arcesious]

If the aliens were to use us as slaves, if I had the resources I would attempt to ally with them, infiltrate them, and double cross them, despite the risk.