The Loroi are Evil!

[Philly]

Putting the survival of your species over the survival of another species requires no morality adjustment? I disagree. The survival of your own species should take top priority over everything, the only thing that would come close would be the survival of a close ally.

Oh, so you find it acceptable to slaughter innocent men, women, and children of another race? Committing genocide means KILLING EVERYONE regardless of age, sex, or anything else. There are no exceptions. Any race that commits such an act for whatever reason is utterly monstrous and deserves to be sent back to the Stone Age, no matter how many times it takes, till they learn the value of life.

There's no need for a sliding moral gauge here, since morality doesn't even enter into the equation...

Your argument assumes that the effort isn't mutual, and that one party, or the other, can safely let their enemy continue to exist as a star faring, war fighting culture. It is invalid on that basis alone. When your enemy does not share your same moral compass, AND can match you punch for punch, you either have to be prepared to meet them blow for blow, no matter how far you have to go with it, or... You die. Choices don't get any simpler than that. Morality is a luxury for less severe circumstances.

What does that make the Loroi and Umiak? In the end, survivors. Both know the value of survival, and it's a simple law of nature at work in the current war. Successful species have never been nice about being successful, and didn't get to where they are by rolling over when confronted with a distasteful choice. They did so by going over the top of other, less successful creatures, in some cases rendering them extinct.

It's not a choice between moral issues, but rather one of literal life or death. You can take the moral road, and lose, since your enemy can outproduce you by a fair margin in both manpower and materiel, and has displayed no qualms about seizing advantages as they come along. Or, you can take the immoral road, and possibly survive. Frankly, it's a choice I'd wish on no one, but the answer is clear cut.

So you're saying its alright for them to go and wipe out every live or unborn Umiak they come across? Based on your logic say the Loroi win, what's to stop them from thinking they can wipe out any other race they deem a threat or unfit to survive? I mean since they are the successful race they should be allowed to do what they please cause you know having morals seems to be a weakness. I'm not saying the Loroi should try to be all buddy, buddy with the Umiak cause that's just fricking ridiculous, but wiping them out makes them no better if not worse because if they are as superior as they claim to be then they should have a way to win without committing genocide.

[fredgiblet]

Just as a note, I see nothing productive coming from this so I'm leaving the conversation.

[TrashMan]

Destroying a nation/empire/political and military entity is not the same as total genocide.

to destroy a nation you have to push it to collapse, hit weak points.
To kill every single member of a space-fearing species...that would require a LOT more effort

[Senanthes]

So you're saying its alright for them to go and wipe out every live or unborn Umiak they come across? Based on your logic say the Loroi win, what's to stop them from thinking they can wipe out any other race they deem a threat or unfit to survive? I mean since they are the successful race they should be allowed to do what they please cause you know having morals seems to be a weakness. I'm not saying the Loroi should try to be all buddy, buddy with the Umiak cause that's just fricking ridiculous, but wiping them out makes them no better if not worse because if they are as superior as they claim to be then they should have a way to win without committing genocide.

In order...

No, actually I've made no such claim, but if you wish to draw that conclusion, I can't stop you. My playing Devils advocate is simply that in this instance. There is nothing 'alright' about the situation, regardless of who one might personally favor. But it is what it is, and neither wishful thinking nor hypothesizing less desperate scenarios changes the basics of it.

As for basing the outcome of further conflicts on my train of thought, there really isn't any need to as a standard and scale have already been established in past conflicts, which shows the assumptions made to be inherently flawed. Notably, the Loroi were isolationist until contact with the Delrias, who were the ones to instigate the war that saw them conquered. Other races allied with the Loroi after the fact, such as the Neridi, Barsam, and Pipolsid, without a shot fired. Further, with one notable exception (Third Mannadi War), the Loroi more often squabbled among themselves, or in the case of foreign aggression, were either attacked, or drawn into conflict by proxy in support of their allies. Is this any different from any other nation today?

Those historic conflicts show two facts; There are very few friendly entities in that region, and the Loroi don't immediately jump to total war unless the threat warrants it. I find it hard to judge them as utterly evil, given that such is the case. If anything, historically, they're more prone to just wanting to be left alone, and get damned grouchy when they're not. Perhaps some of their sparring partners could have taken a hint?

As it is, when you're faced with a potentially superior foe, you simply don't have the luxury of letting high ideals get in the way of survival, and unless I've horribly misread something, the current conflict is damn near asymmetric. Regardless of any perceived superiority, the Loroi know, and admit, that they're out manned and outgunned, and are only holding their own due to their own unique advantages. Calling it a 'war' is a whitewash. A war is the use of violence to force your enemy to comply. The aftermath of the Umiak invasion of Seren, noted to have been prepared in advance, proves this to be something more gruesome. Further, can you really, honestly say that the Loroi were the aggressors? Regardless of who actually fired the first shot at Ukio, could there not have been a dialogue to resolve it peacefully?

Clearly not, as immediately thereafter, the Umiak launched the aforementioned massive invasion of Loroi space, on a scale sufficient to nearly defeat them outright in the first year. How do you negotiate with an enemy who immediately moves to extremes in such a manner? It's also worth noting that the Umiak were quite willing to exterminate planetary populations themselves during said invasion, a fact that was discovered once Seren was retaken. Were there not such desperate circumstances, I would imagine that the Loroi response would have been more measured.

As it was, the utter destruction of the Tithric worlds (not the Tithric as a species, as noted in Insider) resulted in the closing of what would have been a second front, which would have been an unsustainable defensive position for the Loroi, given the losses suffered during the Semoset Campaign. Had they not removed the Tithric as a factor (which was done only after a period of attempting to get the Tithric themselves to resolve the problem, and later, interdiction raids), what assurance can you offer that the Umiak would not have conquered and used that territory to overwhelm their opponents? There really isn't any, save for relying on the 'morality' of the Umiak, which was made quite clear by that point.

All of this can be put simply; If the Loroi don't go for broke, the Umiak are completely willing to wipe them out, or subjugate them, as a matter of their own "security", simply due to the fact that they've been shown to be a viable threat. Left with that sort of enemy, what other option do you have than to cripple them in such a way that they will never again be able to mount such an effort?

In the end, the fact of the matter is, the current conflict was started by the Umiak, and immediately taken to it's farthest extreme. If there is another option within the reality of the situation, barring miracles or 'what if's' that aren't tenable, I'm quite willing to hear it. I simply don't see how morality plays into a fight for survival when one opponent taking any sort of idealistic high ground will lose, with defeat likely amounting to extinction.

[halftea]

I simply don't see how morality plays into a fight for survival when one opponent taking any sort of idealistic high ground will lose, with defeat likely amounting to extinction.

For the moral philosophers out there:

I would argue that using Kantian ethics, that the inherent duty of species survival makes the actions in the current conflict, moral actions. As previously noted, the Tithric are still existent, just no longer a space faring power. So as long as the Loroi don't attempt to exterminate every Umiak in existence, there will still be a Umiak species, so their actions are moral. The hostile Umiak will still survive as a species, just no longer as a space faring threat.

[Senanthes]

I simply don't see how morality plays into a fight for survival when one opponent taking any sort of idealistic high ground will lose, with defeat likely amounting to extinction.

For the moral philosophers out there:

I would argue that using Kantian ethics, that the inherent duty of species survival makes the actions in the current conflict, moral actions. As previously noted, the Tithric are still existent, just no longer a space faring power. So as long as the Loroi don't attempt to exterminate every Umiak in existence, there will still be a Umiak species, so their actions are moral. The hostile Umiak will still survive as a species, just no longer as a space faring threat.

Noted. Thank you for the perspective.