Does -- can -- science fiction deal seriously with the topic of evil?

[Extollager]

Swank wrote, "The line here might be whether you are looking for depictions of evil in individuals and their independent actions (serial killers), or whether you are interested in the kind of evil that takes a conspiracy and a power structure - resulting in millions of victims."

Well, I'd rather just stick to what I said at the beginning, that I wondered if sf does or even can deal seriously with the topic of evil. Now, sitting here this morning, I'm thinking that the more science-oriented it is, the less likely it is that science fiction will deal seriously with the topic of evil, because the modern scientific method, as usually conceived at least, aspires to be value-free. To mention again my favorite example, Imperial Japan's Unit 731 operated according to scientific norms (and apparently discovered useful information). Science itself, thus understood, can never ever give us ought or ought not; a science-based ethics is an impossibility, unless we allow "science" to encompass a much wider range of inquiry than modern science has allowed. I'm thinking of a few sentences in the last lecture in The Abolition of Man.

Those who've suggested 1984 as dealing seriously with the subject of evil could make a good case, since it is a study of a hypothetical near-future civilization based on falsehood, not only the perversion of language but the inculcation of lying to oneself. The novel "believes" (rightly, I would say) that human beings are capable of living by lies persistently, even in the face of evident falsehood. Smith hasn't quite come to that place because he is low in the rank and file rather than a member of the elite, who believe their own propaganda and are able to do so because they reject a traditional understanding of truth itself; for them, "truth" is what the Party says it is (cf. political correctness). Yes, there is indeed a serious treatment of evil at least implied in this novel, and for some readers that is part of its perennial fascination.

Toby, it's clear in LotR too that Sauron was not evil in the beginning. The great tale is not Manichaean, positing a "god of evil" (not even Morgoth was evil in the beginning, though I guess we had to wait till the Silmarillion for explicit confirmation of that) in eternal opposition to an equal good god. There is a great deal of alertness to the matter of evil in LotR, perhaps first demonstrated in Bilbo's peculiar behavior in regard to giving up the Ring before he sets out for Rivendell. This incident passes in a few sentences, but what a lot it implies, especially retrospectively.
Hitmouse, thanks for mentioning Philip K. Dick, whom I haven't read recently. His short story "The Pre-Persons" clearly is an effort at dealing with the topic of evil, although discussion of the story would be discouraged at Chrons. I've read Do Androids once or twice but I don't remember the probing of evil in that -- what did you have in mind? Does A Scanner Darkly? I know that one was, unusually for me, a definite science fiction novel that was also moving (but perhaps especially in the author's afterword).

What about Disch's Camp Concentration? I read that something like 40 years ago. My sense is that it was about something evil that was going on, but I don't know if the author actually dealt seriously with the subject of evil.

 

[Swank]

And then immediately flounders on defining what 'murder' means. I watched an interview recently with a promenant Right Wing American politician who defined ALL abortion as murder - moment of conception onward - but when presented with the (not hypothetical) case of a pregnant 10 year old rape victim immediately and unequivocally stated the rapist should be executed.

State sponsored executions and war are just as arguably not murder as abortions, self defense and a lack of charitable action on behalf of those starving. However, the simple definition of murder is when individuals choose to kill innocent individuals. And that does seem to be universal.

 

[JunkMonkey]

State sponsored executions and war are just as arguably not murder

'State sponsorship' is no excuse or justification for murder. Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Pol Pot's killing fields, James the 1st's witch hunts, the Russian Pogroms, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre.... and all the rest of a depressingly long list of other atrocities I could cite, were all state sponsored.

 

[Swank]

Well, I'd rather just stick to what I said at the beginning, that I wondered if sf does or even can deal seriously with the topic of evil. Now, sitting here this morning, I'm thinking that the more science-oriented it is, the less likely it is that science fiction will deal seriously with the topic of evil, because the modern scientific method, as usually conceived at least, aspires to be value-free.

You have conceived of a premise that simple doesn't fit the facts:

SF is not based around the scientific method or even science. SF is a kind of fiction where something is speculated on by motivating the plot in a consistent manner showing a range of ramifications:

Dune: What happens when you have no computers but advanced technology? The Culture: What happens when you a massively powerful post-scarcity utopia? I, Robot: What happens when you have thinking machines in extraordinary circumstances that are constrained by a rigid set of rules? See how none of those are based on any sort of real science?


And having decided incorrectly that science underlies SF, you have then decided that science is unethical in nature so SF must reflect that. Yet, scientists have developed their own ethics and have used science to make the argument for the benefits of 'good behavior'. Your example of Unit 731 doesn't demonstrate anything about science, but about all the ways totalitarian governments can hurt people by controlling the actions of every part of society.


Several of us have listed great examples of the SF depiction of what most anyone would agree is evil. Not the mystical, theoretical and magical kind of evil personified by bogeymen, but the kind of evil that actually exists in our world. The fact that you immediately thought of the Red Skull when I mentioned Nazi Germany is telling - you seem to be really stuck on this cartoonish idea of evil individuals who are so bad that they can hyponotize a population like Sauron. But that isn't realistic. Hitler didn't control what people thought, he just personified and centralized an evil that a large enough portion of the German population was attracted to, and made that evil government policy.

Sauron is a cartoon, not a person. There are no people that can enslave other's minds. That is an abstraction of the concept of evil, like Freddy Kruger or any other silly superstition based re-imagining of bad acts in a supernatural context. Devils, ghouls, vampires, sorcerers, demons - those are frights for children.

 

[Swank]

'State sponsorship' is no excuse or justification for murder. Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Pol Pot's killing fields, James the 1st's witch hunts, the Russian Pogroms, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre.... and all the rest of a depressingly long list of other atrocities I could cite, were all state sponsored.

Of course. But if you have a rigid definition (as you seem to), so was the execution of the people that built Auschwitz. I don't like the death penalty either, but it is hard to argue that it is universally recognized as murder. Or the death of any German civilian by the Allies in the attempt to end WWII.

 

[Extollager]

Swank, I'm just going to ignore your posting #24. For whatever good will may have been present when you wrote it, thank you.

 

[Swank]

Swank, I'm just going to ignore your posting #24. For whatever good will may have been present when you wrote it, thank you.

That is certainly one way to have a discussion.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Of course. But if you have a rigid definition (as you seem to), so was the execution of the people that built Auschwitz. I don't like the death penalty either, but it is hard to argue that it is universally recognized as murder. Or the death of any German civilian by the Allies in the attempt to end WWII.

I don't have a rigid definition of murder. I can see that there are justifications for killing other people (as a last resort) to prevent a greater harm to other people. But to kill people as individuals or as a group (or encourage others to) in the cause of an abstract idea, belief, or wish fulfilment (and that includes 'revenge on and punishment of the guilty') - that's murder. Evil it, would seem to me, is finding incredibly simple, reality-defying justifications for selfish actions and then sticking to them whatever the consequences for other people. Evil is stupidity unleashed.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I'm guessing CS Lewis deals with evil in his sci-fi; I know David Lindsay did; I can't imagine Ursula le Guin was any less insightful in her sci-fi than in her fantasy.



If you study an elephant's trunk, aren't you studying an elephant?

You're right about Lewis. In his novel Out of the Silent Planet, the main character talks with a hross (seal alien) about others who are "bent," which is basically their term for evil. A hnau is a creature with a soul. The only real evil on Malacandra (Mars), though, are the human villains who come to claim their planet.

 

[Swank]

I don't have a rigid definition of murder. I can see that there are justifications for killing other people (as a last resort) to prevent a greater harm to other people. But to kill people as individuals or as a group (or encourage others to) in the cause of an abstract idea, belief, or wish fulfilment (and that includes 'revenge on and punishment of the guilty') - that's murder. Evil it, would seem to me, is finding incredibly simple, reality-defying justifications for selfish actions and then sticking to them whatever the consequences for other people. Evil is stupidity unleashed.

Yup. But the word term "state sponsored execution" includes assassination of terrorists, death sentences for murderers and political killings. Some would argue none are acceptable, others that all are, and most that some are. But in all types of execution the citizens are allowing the state to kill human beings on their behalf. Which is arguably murder. Just that when we agree with a certain type of murder we label it differently and invent a justification for why it is not also murder.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I search for it and it tells me it's a sci-fi story and that it first appeared in a sci-fi anthology. That seems a fairly good reason to call it sci-fi.

If I search "fantasy thriller films" on Google, a bunch of sci-fi films come up. It doesn't change anything. Anyone who has seriously read this story would probably come to the conclusion that it's dystopian/philosophical fiction. There's neither a lick of fantasy nor sci-fi in it.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I never understood legal execution. "You done murdered one o' ours so we gonna murder you back." It should be considered morally degrading to mimic a murderer.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

If you use philosophy trends today to predict the future the likely majority view in time will be that there is no universal truth and therefore all moral judgements come down to an individual or a society's personal choice.

(I'm defining evil as something which is always wrong, even if someone or a society thinks that the action or attitude is right.)

That's a really interesting statement which made me stop and ponder for a while. I think we live in an era of relatively universal morality, in comparison with much of history. Now, these moral codes may be somewhat fluid, but I don't think that is a bad thing. In other words, I'm glad to not be living in a time when I might be hung for stealing a pheasant or burned for following the wrong religion. But I actually do believe there is a universal definitive truth behind human morality (whether religious or based on evolutionary expedience). We would not have come down from the trees without it. It involves a cooperative spirit and a humanitarian outlook, and will serve us well in the future as it has in the past (as long as we don't sacrifice it in the pursuit of false notions of absolute personal freedom).

 

[The Judge]

I've locked this thread as a temporary measure while the mods consider whether to allow it to continue.

 

[Extollager]

Let's begin again...

Without being a scholar of world cultures, I suppose that the subject of evil is something of universal concern. Understandings of the nature and origin of evil differ, but about the fact of evil there could be said to be agreement; one culture's thoughtful representative, A, making first contact with another culture's thoughtful representative, B, will not gradually realize, with consternation, that B has no idea whatever of what A is talking about, as if "evil" is a completely alien concept in B's time and place.

A written work may be a literary achievement for what it accomplishes without dealing seriously with the topic of evil. Some literary forms by their nature, such as love lyrics, may appropriately ignore evil. On the other hand, it's evident that literary works that haunt the imaginations of readers down through the centuries often deal with evil and in a serious way. Othello's probing portrait of Iago is an example. From ancient times, the Book of Job wrestles with evil. Heart of Darkness doesn't explain, or explain away, evil as a product of colonialism but cuts deeper.

Modern fantasy may seek a higher realism permitting exploration of the subject of evil, as Tolkien does in his depictions of Gollum, Saruman, and Denethor, to name a few. No doubt innumerable works of pop fantasy merely supply bad characters so that the heroic ones will have foes. Perhaps that's what the conflict in The Worm Ouroboros amounts to.

Golden Age writers of science fiction such as Asimov, Clarke, de Camp, Hamilton, Heinlein, &c. typically either did not deal with evil, or located evil in ready-made baddies for the heroes to overcome.

It may be that the inherent "bias" of science fiction is towards an avoidance of a serious treatment of evil, because, at least as commonly understood, the scientific method is close observation and controlled experiment with the immediate purpose of acquiring objective knowledge. The method might be used, or its findings applied, inappropriately, even immorally, but in itself the method excludes the categories of good and evil.

Yet science fiction writers, dealing with human concerns, may deal seriously with the subject of evil, even if few choose to do so.

Most Chrons readers will be familiar with these two novels as science fiction that deals seriously with the subject of evil.

Wells's The Island of Dr. Moreau
Orwell's 1984

What others would readers nominate? Unless most everyone here is likely to have read the book, like the Wells and Orwell, it would be good to make the case, to explain why you think the book or books you cite take on the subject of evil, seriously.

One that comes to my mind is Golding's Lord of the Flies, in which a group of boys, castaway on a desert island, revert to savagery. The question here is whether or not that's a work of science fiction, I suppose. Golding deals seriously indeed with the subject of evil, about which he wrote elsewhere, “I must say that anyone who passed through those years [of World War II] without understanding that man produces evil as a bee produces honey, must have been blind or wrong in the head.” (Quotation as copies from Good Reads.)

This thread is not intended for partisan airing of disputes about religion and politics, so let's see if we can have a discussion here without it having to be shut down. I'm hoping we get a second chance, but I doubt we'll get a third.

 

[AllanR]

I don't recall the name of the short story nor the author....

The story was a trial of a t-rex.

In the far future, people have decided what is moral now is moral always. They travel back in time and charge sentient beings with crimes. A particular t-rex (sentient) was charged with killing for pleasure instead of killing for food.

 

[AllanR]

Voyage of the Space Beagle their mission to Andromeda is extended so they can destroy a galaxy sized being that feeds off death. The being is presented as a substantive evil.

Skin of Evil a Star Trek episode.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I think Mathesons "Legend" is an interesting exploration of evil, particularly the ending and subversion of roles.

I think Keyes "Flowers for Algernon" is a book that really opens ones eyes to mundane evils, the little evils that we all make in judgement of others. This book really affected me and the way I view people and intelligence specifically as some sort of moral agent.

Although less serious in their treatments, and relying more on tropes of evil:

We have the alien aliens type of evil, such as the Primes from Hamiltons "Commonwealth Series" - a life form whose sole intent is to destroy all life forms that are not Prime.

There are also the malevolent ancient evils - such as the Blight in Vinges "Fire Upon the Deep" - ancient, incomprehensively intelligent and malevolent in equal parts.

 

[KGeo777]

I am interested in the historical framework for this sort of discussion.
In the poem Beowulf, a community is under attack from an outsider and they send their most capable person to defend the village.
Basic hero- home turf problem situation.
In the epic of Gilgamesh, he goes beyond the need to defend the village and seeks exploration and immortality and it causes tragedy.
The Iliad is similar to that in that the Greeks are not defending their community--they are fighting to bring back someone's stolen wife in a foreign land and Achilles brings tragedy by his excessive passion--wanting revenge for an insult.
Even though Homer was composing it for a Greek audience, the audience is invited to feel compassion for the Trojans. So it isn't quite like the Grendel situation.
But I see a basic idea to these three situations--and that is the danger of unfamiliar territory. Going outside of your neighborhood can lead to problems.

There are many examples of stories where this idea is at least part of the theme.
Othello was mentioned--he was from a far off land taken as a slave, and then soldier, and he is trying to assimilate as a fish out of water into this adopted society and it leads to tragedy. Iago might be to blame for this but you could also say that Othello's violent reactionary nature either due to learned behavior or innate qualities, Desdemona's behavior (either learned behavior or innate qualities), and her father's action and behavior also contributed to it.

Moby Dick is also in the same thematic ballpark--Ahab is not defending his community from an outsider. He goes out into the ocean which I think Melville presents as another community, he makes references to whales and their offspring-----and Ahab's excessive passion--wanting revenge--leads to tragedy. In that case, Grendel survives. The quasi-Beowulf of the story--Ahab, is destroyed.

I mention this to show how this theme is presented and when we get to science fiction, it can get really distorted.
The early science fiction generally sticks to the same thematic pattern. Victor Frankenstein, like Gilgamesh, is exploring the unknown and his excessive passion leads to tragedy. If he had focused on his personal relations, none of it would have happened.

Dr. Moreau is along the same theme although we aren't invited to sympathize with Moreau the way you are meant to with Victor.

In Dracula, I recall someone--Seward maybe--says that vivisection had become morally acceptable. Was that just his opinion as a character, was it Stoker making a personal statement on his viewpoint, or was it intended as a kind of subtle ironic comparison between Dracula's behavior (vivisecting with his teeth) and a scientist?
But the basic idea of Dracula is similar to Beowulf--an outsider attacking the home turf and dealing with it by destroying Grendel.

In the case of the War of the World--there is no Beowulf to save the village. In that case it is microorganisms rejecting an alien invasion. That's really brilliant.

Let's get to Who Goes There? because I want to show how this theme can be completely turned around.
In that story, you have explorers in Antarctica encountering another explorer from space--and they get attacked and MacReady who is the Beowulf of the story leads the effort to destroy Grendel. The alien in the story is either evil or, at the very least, you don't want to play a game of Twister with it.
In that case it is rather traditional except they are in Antarctica. You could make the argument that they aren't that different from Ahab and his crew going off into the unknown or, you could say that since they are earthlings, the home village is the entire earth.

There was a recent short story--The Things--which completely turned it around. The thing was an ambassador who wanted to bring universal love and encounters violent rejection and decides it needs to become aggressive to accomplish its mission.
This is an entire subversion of the Beowulf Grendel theme--in this case, we are invited to side with Grendel.

I Am Legend does that as well--but it's more subtle because we are identifying with Neville and his extinction. Basically the village is overrun by Grendels and you just have to accept it.

The Things has one difficulty with its narrow moral perspective and that is--the dogs are rejecting the universal love as well. They do no want any part of it either.
I am not sure how we can relate to the message in the Things. It makes me think of the Imp of the Perverse and the part about coming close to the edge of a cliff and feeling the urge to jump off. The Things as a story seems to me the equivalent of imagining what it would be like to jump off.

On Star Trek, the basic idea of the show is to explore the unknown and yet the message about sticking to your home turf is totally absent.
As well as the ignoring the dangers of technological dependency. How many times were they saved by tachions?

But on Skin of Evil--this episode bugged me because we learn the oil creature was created by a scientific experiment to shed all negative qualities. So in a sense this alien is a vivisected lab specimen or Frankenstein monster. As I recall, the creature was suffering from loneliness and asks Picard to destroy it--and he refuses, instead wanting to imprison the creature alone for eternity---which felt like a petty act of vengeance because their security officer was killed. You could say if you can't stand the nebula's heat, stay out of the galaxy kitchen. She signed up for that job. It could also have led to an even worse tragedy if some ship was forced to land on that planet. That's how I saw it--but someone might disagree, so then you are left with the question of--is one person's evil, another person's good? How far does that go?

PS
Do you want to be assimilated by the things?

 

[hitmouse]

The interesting books on this subject, for me are those such as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Probably easiest to discuss this in the context of the film Blade Runner which takes some liberties with the book, but which more people are familiar with. Very few people come out clean in this film. In the end it is a question of perspective.
The law, with Deckard as its agent, hunting and killing replicants: they are not human, do not (apparently) have empathy. In fact they have the same desires and needs as humans, and are almost impossible to tell apart. The law dehumanises them, which legitimises the exploitation and killing.
The Tyrell Corporation which makes the replicants as slaves, gives them finite lifespans, puts a commercial gloss on the whole affair.
The Replicants themselves: clearly victims, and desperate, but willing to torture and kill.
Deckard himself may be conflicted, but he still does a paid job hunting and killing replicants.