The Kzinti and the Pierson Puppeteers

[Vera_Ljuba]

For those who are not familiar with the works of Larry Niven, I will present a very short synopsis.

In the hypothetical world of Larry Niven there are many species. One of them are the Kzinti, a carnivorous, feline, warrior species with their rigid code of honor. They live for fighting. The other species is the Pierson Puppeteers. They are herbivores, and their ethical system is based upon cowardice. No risk taking, avoidance of danger, giving in to blackmail, etc.

However, the Puppeteers are excellent engineers, and they invented the “perfect” protective weapon. It “inflicts” incredible pleasure, bliss, happiness on an attacker. No one can be violent if they experience ecstasy.

In one episode the Puppeteer uses this weapon on a Kzinti attacker. The Kzinti is very upset, because this weapon could make him become a “slave” of the pleasure.

So, here comes the scenario. The Puppeteers are not aggressive, ever. They only use this weapon defensively. They only use it when they are being threatened, directly.

The question: “what is your opinion about this state of affairs”? Please, do not give in to your “urges” to change the goalposts. Deal with it as presented. Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

In one episode the Puppeteer uses this weapon on a Kzinti attacker. The Kzinti is very upset, because this weapon could make him become a “slave” of the pleasure.

So, here comes the scenario. The Puppeteers are not aggressive, ever. They only use this weapon defensively. They only use it when they are being threatened, directly.

The question: “what is your opinion about this state of affairs”? Please, do not give in to your “urges” to change the goalposts. Deal with it as presented. Thank you.

I’m not certain what you’re proposing as an issue here. Are you equating “passivity” with “angst over causing someone to become upset”?

 

[Crusaderbear]

When it comes to the actual attack phase, then YES, interfering with the enemies free will is imperative! I haven’t read that particular series in years, have to go back and give it a reread!

Since , as you said, it is only used as a defensive weapon, it’s not a threat to their free will.

There was another series where the violent race had a ‘fuse’ built into their brains, if they thought anything violent, they immediately dropped dead. That was interference with free will.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

Actually, I don’t like the options. Given that you have set up the conditions “as is” there is pretty much equal validity to either viewpoint.

The Tasp is an interesting weapon. Yes, it is stunningly effective as a defense weapon, and thus, my vote would be yes.

However, it COULD become addictive and alter the free will. Many drugs do that as well. As such, my vote would be no.

I will not go “Crazy Eddie” and come to the come to the unreasonable conclusion that all problems, as posed, have solutions.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[ANV]

definitely I like it. Victims don’t want to be attacked, tortured, suffer and become victims, the attacker’s free will is not ethically more important or than the victim’s suffering.

 

[GEddie]

This is the Tasp as described in **Ringworld, **right?

I think it’s a great idea. Free will as we mostly imagine it is overrated anyways; arguably it is mostly a mirage.

And being subjected to violence impinges upon free-will anyway.

ICXC NIKA

 

[StephieNorthCo]

This is the Tasp as described in **Ringworld, **right?

I think it’s a great idea. Free will as we mostly imagine it is overrated anyways; arguably it is mostly a mirage.

And being subjected to violence impinges upon free-will anyway.

ICXC NIKA

Agreed. However, there may be more to it than that. Part of me equates it to the Puppeteer equivalent of a lobotomy. And I’m not convinced that is a valid tool.

However, Louis did, at one point, become a “wirehead”, but overcame it. This tells us that free will, or human Spirit, or God’s Grace is ultimately the trump card.

As one responder pointed out, the attackers free will should not carry the same weight as a victim.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[GEddie]

Agreed. However, there may be more to it than that. Part of me equates it to the Puppeteer equivalent of a lobotomy. And I’m not convinced that is a valid tool.

However, Louis did, at one point, become a “wirehead”, but overcame it. This tells us that free will, or human Spirit, or God’s Grace is ultimately the trump card.

As one responder pointed out, the attackers free will should not carry the same weight as a victim.

Blessings,
Stephie

Louis became a wirehead (having an electrode screwed into the pleasure-center of his brain) because his “willpower” was insufficient to overcome his desire. A Kzinti would have been appalled by the thought of doing so; presumably some other humans would have felt the same.

While the “droud” or wireheading terminal can be (very roughly) compared to a lobotomy, in that the brain is permanently altered; the tasp would to my mind not be.

ICXC NIKA

 

[DaveBj]

Tagging so it will show up in my search and I can follow.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

Louis became a wirehead (having an electrode screwed into the pleasure-center of his brain) because his “willpower” was insufficient to overcome his desire. A Kzinti would have been appalled by the thought of doing so; presumably some other humans would have felt the same.

While the “droud” or wireheading terminal can be (very roughly) compared to a lobotomy, in that the brain is permanently altered; the tasp would to my mind not be.

ICXC NIKA

It’s not clear whether the Tasp, by itself would permanently “rewire” the brain. Addictive drugs can clearly alter personality substantially.

On the Kziniti, Speaker to Animals certainly would not risk it, congratulating Nessus on such a formidable weapon. He is motivated not to be subject to a Herbivore, but the threat, one could argue, made him so.

I think I buy your distinguishing between the Droud, Tasp and labotomy.

Blessings,
Stephie

 

[GEddie]

I imagine that would depend upon how repeatedly someone was subjected to the tasp.

 

[Whalljim]

When it comes to the actual attack phase, then YES, interfering with the enemies free will is imperative! I haven’t read that particular series in years, have to go back and give it a reread!

Since , as you said, it is only used as a defensive weapon, it’s not a threat to their free will.

There was another series where the violent race had a ‘fuse’ built into their brains, if they thought anything violent, they immediately dropped dead. That was interference with free will.

Ah yes, the John Ringo series he doesn’t want to finish. . That got a little crass for me, but it was fun at points.

But… no, I don’t think this is an issue so long as its only used defensively. That might be a lot harder than it sounds, but so long as they stick to it, its fine.

If we are attacked, then disrupting the enemies kill chain is a great tactic; and this is a novel way of doing it. They just don’t want to attack because they are so happy they can’t be bothered.

One caveat to this might be how long this works. If it works for a month that’s one thing. If it works for the organisms whole life then I’d wonder if its proportional.

 

[Gorgias]

And being subjected to violence impinges upon free-will anyway.

No, it doesn’t!

It’s an offense and an injustice against the victim, without a doubt, but it doesn’t impinge on his free will!

Free will is an expression of a desire to take (or defer to take) actions. The action in this case belongs to the aggressor. It’s a sinful action, so he’s using his free will in a way contrary to God’s law.

However, there’s no action on the part of the victim. At best, you might claim that the free will intention of the victim is “I don’t wanna get beaten up.” But, that’s not a free will action on his part. (The aggressor is the author of the action here; it’s unjust, and sinful But, on the part of the victim, there’s no action.)

Here’s the example to help you out: if I said to myself, “it’s my will that GEddie give me one million dollars” and you don’t do that… have you impinged on my free will? Of course not!

So: no “free will impingement” here.

(Moreover, there’s the classic debate over whether free will extends to actually performing the actions, or if it’s limited to the desire to take an action. I’m not proposing we pick up that part of the argument here.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No, it doesn’t!

It’s an offense and an injustice against the victim, without a doubt, but it doesn’t impinge on his free will!

Free will is an expression of a desire to take (or defer to take) actions. The action in this case belongs to the aggressor. It’s a sinful action, so he’s using his free will in a way contrary to God’s law.

However, there’s no action on the part of the victim. At best, you might claim that the free will intention of the victim is “I don’t wanna get beaten up.” But, that’s not a free will action on his part. (The aggressor is the author of the action here; it’s unjust, and sinful But, on the part of the victim, there’s no action.)

Here’s the example to help you out: if I said to myself, “it’s my will that GEddie give me one million dollars” and you don’t do that… have you impinged on my free will? Of course not!

So: no “free will impingement” here.

(Moreover, there’s the classic debate over whether free will extends to actually performing the actions, or if it’s limited to the desire to take an action. I’m not proposing we pick up that part of the argument here.)

If one accepts your argument, then the whole “free will” defense in the “problem of evil” collapses. If only the desire counts, then God could prevent all the “unwanted” actions without hurting the attacker’s “free will”. But this is truly a different line of thought.

 

[fhansen]

Sure, I’d turn enemies into passive pleasure-bots. They’d never amount to much of anything, much like drug users we might know now; they wouldn’t be choosing or struggling for non-violence or for justice within themselves, but at least they’d be harmless.

 

[Wesrock]

This seems like a standard self-defense scenario and its application against an unjust aggressor seems to me to be morally licit.

As to other applications or the ethics of this technology in other applications, that’s outside the scope of your scenario.

 

[mkoopman]

I am unfamiliar with the romance sci-fi paperbacks and at a disadvantage in this thread. However, as ‘Kinsey’ and Pierce philosophy, respectful of Saussier, are familiar I question the domain of free will examined. A process philosophy even with exingencies excepted and keenly relevant to the proposed conditions lacks aptitude for free will experience. This is extensively a proposition in coercion.

Modernists with no reference to a loving Creator God deny free will by the exclusion identified in this coercion proposition. Saint Stephen, for one, saw the fullness of human existence as greater than the materialism of his time, framed as it was in the guise of true religion. Saul, Saint Paul, eventually came to this deeper understanding. Fictional characters admit a difficulty in resolving greater meaning relevant to real relationships.

Hope this adds constructively to your paradigm resolutions.

 

[goout]

For those who are not familiar with the works of Larry Niven, I will present a very short synopsis.

In the hypothetical world of Larry Niven there are many species. One of them are the Kzinti, a carnivorous, feline, warrior species with their rigid code of honor. They live for fighting. The other species is the Pierson Puppeteers. They are herbivores, and their ethical system is based upon cowardice. No risk taking, avoidance of danger, giving in to blackmail, etc.

However, the Puppeteers are excellent engineers, and they invented the “perfect” protective weapon. It “inflicts” incredible pleasure, bliss, happiness on an attacker. No one can be violent if they experience ecstasy.

In one episode the Puppeteer uses this weapon on a Kzinti attacker. The Kzinti is very upset, because this weapon could make him become a “slave” of the pleasure.

So, here comes the scenario. The Puppeteers are not aggressive, ever. They only use this weapon defensively. They only use it when they are being threatened, directly.

The question: “what is your opinion about this state of affairs”? Please, do not give in to your “urges” to change the goalposts. Deal with it as presented. Thank you.

A hypothetical has no “goal posts” to change.

Question (not hypothetical):
What does free will serve, if anything? What is it’s purpose? Is it to assert it’s own power?
To assert it’s own capability? It’s own license?

Is the exercise of free will and the imposition of it’s consequences an absolute right?
Does a mass murderer have the right to the practical exercise of his free will, even detrimental to the autonomy and well being of others?

And before you even start to apply anthropocentric ideas to God, please note that the Christian God is not a human being.

 

[Gorgias]

If one accepts your argument, then the whole “free will” defense in the “problem of evil” collapses. If only the desire counts, then God could prevent all the “unwanted” actions without hurting the attacker’s “free will”. But this is truly a different line of thought.

It is a different tangent, albeit an interesting one.

I think you’re right, partially, without fully recognizing it. If, in asserting the “problem of evil”, one claims that God is evil because he doesn’t prevent us from willing evil, then I agree: that premise fails. (To prevent us from willing to reject Him, he merely creates a race of robots, who are unable to assent and to choose to love Him. That’s not what He has revealed to us that He wants.)

On the other hand, though, if we accept “free will” as addressing “will” but not “act”, then it’s irrelevant to the so-called “problem of evil.” The answer to the problem is found elsewhere. (However, my personal opinion is that restricting “acts” while not restricting “will” leads to the same problem, albeit experienced differently. If you will to beat me over the head with a lead pipe, and find out that – somewhat inexplicably – every time you pick up a lead pipe with the intent to attack me, the pipe turns into a stick of butter… well, it won’t take many iterations for you to realize that you’re being thwarted by some external, powerful, invisible, perhaps transcendent force. And, that will lead to a realization on your part – God won’t stop your thoughts, but He’ll force your actions. In other words, God would still be making you a robot; maybe not internally, in your head, but externally, in your actions. And therefore, you would reach the same untenable destination: you are unable to choose or reject God, since in all cases, he insures that you do not reject Him. In other words, yet again, this is not what He has created us for – that is, to choose Him, and in doing so, to follow His will for us.)

 

[mkoopman]

A hypothetical has no “goal posts” to change.

Question (not hypothetical):
…

And before you even start to apply anthropocentric ideas to God, please note that the Christian God is not a human being.

Jesus Christ is the first fruits of the Resurrection as True God and True Man. Fully human and fully divine is the nature of The Incarnation, The Word made Flesh. Celebrated in The Eucharist as a lasting sign of God’s entry into Creation and time as the healer and as righteous judge; King of kings.

That certainly makes the natural body a clear sign of Christ as God-Man and not some Calvinist like flesh suit to be discarded or refuted to be of God’s design. We are made in God’s image in a clear revelation of The Incarnation.

What bearing has this on the nature of free will in any substantial way? Moreso, how does this aspect of God and Adam, God’s design, have any bearing on the proposition underlying this thread?