Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Anemone wrote:
This is not actually a discussion about the Imperium reforming.

And yet you continue to argue the point. At length.

 Anemone wrote:
Why not simply leave them alone since they are doing nothing aggressive to you?

Because it weakens to dogma and the territorial integrity of the Imperium, both of which are fundamental factors in its survival in the 41st millennium. Because IoM is a very poorly run organisation.

 Anemone wrote:
The Imperium can change.

I guess it's good that that I never said it can't. But 'can change' is not the same as 'can survive the change'. Show me a political entity that managed to successfully reform itself while engaged in all out war on all fronts, against opponents that often don't have the word 'ceasefire' in their vocabulary.

 Anemone wrote:
6) It is moral to leave alive species which do not threaten you at a point in time, yes. By using the moral logic you are espousing at the end of your post we, as an individual, should kill all other individuals right now since, of course, it is fully within the realm of possibility (most likely a fact) that eventually someone else might or will give rise to, directly or indirectly, something that could hurt, harm or inconvenience us. If one is justified, or morally obligated, to wipe something out because of the fact that a potential threat might emerge from it in the future then we are required to wipe out anything which could potentially threaten us in the future and that would mean...we have to wipe out everything. Even ourselves by some rigorous applications of rational philosophy. Moreover, if we are talking deontology, we are simply justifying anyone wishing to eradicate us by the categorical imperative we are creating.

You are not answering my question. Is it moral to risk the lives of your fellow humans by sparing the lives of aliens when the empirical experience of the universe gives you a coin flip chance for the alien to be either a pacifist philosopher or an aggresive war machine, and the outcome of the flip can change over time? How many lives and how much territory had the IoM lost because the Tau were not destroyed in their infancy, when they were simply minding their own business? How much more will be lost? At what point does the consequences of your just action become worse that an unjust action you chose not to take? I mean, just so that we're clear, if you say 'never', I can definitely respect that.

As far as categorical imperatives go, the IoM already faces opponents that want it erased, no questions asked. Giving them an extra reason doesn't matter at this point.

You continue to argue it by the same margin. My point by stating it was not an argument for the 'realistic' change of the Imperium was to prevent the argument from sliding into normative statements and instead keep it in the realm of discussing justifiability since that was the issue I had mentioned. Saying I argue the point at length is moot, so do you, so what is proved or achieved by pointing it out?

How does it weaken territorial integrity to not kill someone and take their territory? The Diasporex and Tentacld Beasts existed in territory outside the Imperium, the Imperium didn't have to attack or kill them, it was simply the decision of the Imperium to do so without provocation. If you do not need a dogma of kill all aliens why keep it? Why not simply have a dogma of kill what threatens me? Why is there an obligation to expand such dogma from what it need by (fight back against what threatens me) to what it need not be (kill anything not conforming to my world view even if it doesn't threatens me). There is no need for th dogma to include the destruction of those things on principle. One can have a society be anti-Ork, anti-Nid, anti-Chaos and still not eradicate other alien life forms on principle, The Tau are a clear example that such a routine easily possible. Thus said dogma is not necessary.

The Imperium does not in any way face such instant death at current that a change in policy would instantly spell its end. There simply isn't any Vince with which to say 'the moment they change anything they will die'. If you do have evidence of where that has been canonically stated I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, as I've seen numerous times, it becomes a crutch to justify something by insisting that if it were any other way it would definitely be bad. It's a method of denying any attempt to change by insisting the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

I did answer your question. I said that yes, it is immoral to kill a person because they might be a future threat to you. Otherwise, as I demonstrated, we should all be killing each other right now. Since we all potentially pose future threats to ourselves. In 40k mankind has intimate awareness thanks to the Heresy that they pose a huge potential threat to each other and, thus, using your logic that if something poses a threat to you in the future you have a moral obligation to destroy it (including innocents and civilians) all humans should kill each other in order to prevent said future potential threat. My answer was clear, in the first line you'll see right before the full stop I said 'yes'. Additionally you are shifting positions by staring immorality with the Tau conquests. As valid a question is 'how many alien lives could have been spared if mankind was wiped out in its infancy' shifting the goal posts to automatically start at the Tau and always cast the Imperium as 'victim' is completely irrational. If you wish to inquire how much life was lost to the Tau then why not go further back and inquire how much life was lost to the Imperium? Why only analyze one faction when the other faction, in this case, has killed astronomically more? One is justified to fight back against existential threats. The Imperium does not simply do that. The Diasporex, the Tentacled Beasts and the Tau in their infancy are all examples of (and far from the only) of beings who posed no threat but the Imperium intended to kill regardless. Said position is unjustifiable and uneccesary.

As for the categorical imperative; races which do not give the Imperium a reason to annihilate them should thus not be subject to the same imperative. Orks, Nid and Chaos all give justification for their destruction because they intend it to everyone else. Greet, Diasporex, Tau and Tentacled Beasts to name a few do not and thus the Imperium is unjustified and unnecessary in its attempts and successful genocides of them.

 Anemone wrote:
How does it weaken territorial integrity to not kill someone and take their territory?

Uh, that's how it works in the real life. You don't leave pockets of unclaimed territory behind your lines. It's bad business and an invitation for a catastrophe. Likewise, having safe border is good practice.

 Anemone wrote:
One can have a society be anti-Ork, anti-Nid, anti-Chaos and still not eradicate other alien life forms on principle, The Tau are a clear example that such a routine easily possible. Thus said dogma is not necessary.

The Tau lived a sheltered, cosy life. The first alien race they encountered were essentially the Noble Savages of 40k. They make for an extremely poor comparison for IoM's situation.

 Anemone wrote:
The Imperium does not in any way face such instant death at current that a change in policy would instantly spell its end. There simply isn't any Vince with which to say 'the moment they change anything they will die'. If you do have evidence of where that has been canonically stated I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, as I've seen numerous times, it becomes a crutch to justify something by insisting that if it were any other way it would definitely be bad. It's a method of denying any attempt to change by insisting the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no evidence to support my position. It's a fictional setting we're talking about, with barely a sliver of its structure exposed to us. I do have a general knowledge of the history of human organisations that tells me the higher the level of orthodoxy, the bigger the trauma of any attempts at reformation. Or that striking at the fundamentals of your organisation in a moment of crisis is a generally poor idea.

What exactly do you present to support your position, other than the assumption that the Imperium is only a step away from enlightenment and they only need to try a little harder?

 Anemone wrote:
Additionally you are shifting positions by staring immorality with the Tau conquests. As valid a question is 'how many alien lives could have been spared if mankind was wiped out in its infancy' shifting the goal posts to automatically start at the Tau and always cast the Imperium as 'victim' is completely irrational.

How about you stop putting words in my mouth? The point I was making was that the Tau were once a small, unimportant race that now poses a potentially existential threat to the Imperium. They're the poster boys for Imperial policy of exterminating seemingly benign races, because there is no guarantee those benign races will remain so forever.

As I said, I don't have an issue with your absolute morals. I just don't think they can be applied to IoM without causing its destruction.

The only thing I have to add to this argument is that the word' Gue'vesa', if following the same construction as 'kor'vesa', puts humans and drones on the same sociological level within the Tau Empire.

The suffix "vesa" simply mean helper. Gue'vesa means "human helpers". It's not anything bad. Remember that O'vesa, is an earth caste scientist in the enclaves.

Kor'vesa means "flying helpers".

I'm going to request that this thread gets back on topic. Background and discussion of Warzone: Damocles. The actions during and the potential consequences as a result.

Not the discussion of the Morality and Governing consequences of either the Imperium of Man or the Tau empire. Please make a new thread to discuss this