4 ms·

Then again understanding your choices and actions relies heavily on being aware of their consequences. So a soldier trained to kill cannot be judged by what he

Then again understanding your choices and actions relies heavily on being aware of their consequences. So a soldier trained to kill cannot be judged by what he does in a simulation (or what they believe to be one). The consequences of your actions are what really define them. So an Ender playing in a simulation is no different from a monkey being taught to press a button. One of them doesn't know why it's doing that and can't fathom the consequences but there's a reward at the end, the other concludes there are no real consequences but there's a reward at the end. He has not yet been faced with the real situation so it's impossible to to decide whether he would act the same way or not.

gmueckl 8y ago
But if you are that soldier and you develop reasonable doubt that whatever is said to be a simulation is in fact reality, what do you do?
- close04 8y ago
  As a civilian I am certain my reactions, instincts, and decisions are vastly different from those of a soldier. I am not trained to follow orders and take lives regardless of my opinions. I am allowed to have doubts and act on those doubts as I see fit without fear of a court marshal. At this time in real life any soldier should have reasonable doubt about whether their next target is an enemy combatant or a civilian based on an almost endless record of mistakes and mishaps. But questioning the order or entertaining that sense of doubt could be the difference between surviving and getting your whole squad killed. Now take that soldier and put them in a simulation and you raised the bar 1000 fold on whether they should worry about real life consequences. They're trained not to worry when they know it's real, let alone when it might not be real at all. The thing with soldiers is that the whole military culture instills a sense of following orders, the "reasonable doubt" bar is set a lot higher before you can expect them to oppose or even entertain that doubt and investigate.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    I was a conscript in the German army and there the emphasis is definitely not put on creating soldiers that follow orders mindlessly. The way the German army is organized allows (and to some extent demands) that soldiers get a degree of freedom about how to arrived at their set goals (in contrast to micromanagement by commanding officers). Attached to that is a responsibility for every soldier to recognize unlawful orders and disobey them.
ben509 8y ago
Speaking as a veteran and someone who was in an OPFOR unit, we trained in "simulations" as close as possible to the way we fight. > So a soldier trained to kill cannot be judged by what he does in a simulation (or what they believe to be one). Interestingly, EXROE (exercise rules of engagement) violations are subject to article 15 non-judicial punishment, so they are judged by what they do in a simulation in the US military. Our simulations are more realistic than the ones depicted in Ender's game, which were pretty strange looking back at it. In ours, you're in full kit, you're carrying your service weapon with a MILES laser attached and a blank fire adapter, there are helicopters flying overhead, and we have villages with imams and such, etc. And there are consequences... if the OPFOR wins the town will go "red" and demonstrations will break out, if BLUFOR wins the town goes "blue" and OPFOR is forced to leave. The big misconception people have is there are all these instant decisions you have to make or ironclad orders that have to be executed in an instant. The reality is you're responsible for what you shoot at, and that's why you're trained in target identification to know what you're shooting at. You generally don't want to be in a tactical situation where you have to make instant decisions; that's why the cordon and search tactics (similar to SWAT tactics) were so controversial precisely because going room to room meant making large numbers of snap decisions. The results were pretty predictable. Well developed rules of engagement and tactics help soldiers distinguish clearly between enemy combatants, friendlies and civilians. For example, if you are defending a gate, you're going to set up barriers to slow vehicles down so you have plenty of time to identify a potential VBIED. And you mark out different zones... this is where you flash lights, this is where you fire a warning shot, and if they get past this point you open up.
- close04 8y ago
  That's not the kind of sim I was thinking about. That's the case because the rules of your sim precisely replicate real life and that's the only point of it. You're "playing" following a very clear rule book. And they are still "real life", you are not put in a virtual training/learning environment where you write the rule book and can expect mistakes to have 0 consequences. The question was what if the simulation didn't replicate real life? What if you were expected or requested to do more by being told "it's a simulation and your ONLY goal is to win". It's GTA, Counter Strike, StarCraft, etc. Would knowing the person you just ran over while trying to win is a real person that just died or that you sent a real squad of marines to die so you can save one tank change your decisions? It's a hypothetical exercise, just like the Ender story. My main point is that even if you're trained to kill in real life the decisions you take in a sim with "fictitious" rules and scenarios can't be considered a breach of morality. Anyway, there is no justice or real consequences even for mistakes made in real life when it comes to the military. As evidence stands the mountain of innocent civilian victims. And to make the parallel with real life, Ender is not a soldier, he's a general. And just like in real life a decision that costs millions of lives on any side can still be rewarded with medals, glory, fame, as long as you're on the winning side.

gmueckl 8y ago

But if you are that soldier and you develop reasonable doubt that whatever is said to be a simulation is in fact reality, what do you do?

close04 8y ago
As a civilian I am certain my reactions, instincts, and decisions are vastly different from those of a soldier. I am not trained to follow orders and take lives regardless of my opinions. I am allowed to have doubts and act on those doubts as I see fit without fear of a court marshal. At this time in real life any soldier should have reasonable doubt about whether their next target is an enemy combatant or a civilian based on an almost endless record of mistakes and mishaps. But questioning the order or entertaining that sense of doubt could be the difference between surviving and getting your whole squad killed. Now take that soldier and put them in a simulation and you raised the bar 1000 fold on whether they should worry about real life consequences. They're trained not to worry when they know it's real, let alone when it might not be real at all. The thing with soldiers is that the whole military culture instills a sense of following orders, the "reasonable doubt" bar is set a lot higher before you can expect them to oppose or even entertain that doubt and investigate.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  I was a conscript in the German army and there the emphasis is definitely not put on creating soldiers that follow orders mindlessly. The way the German army is organized allows (and to some extent demands) that soldiers get a degree of freedom about how to arrived at their set goals (in contrast to micromanagement by commanding officers). Attached to that is a responsibility for every soldier to recognize unlawful orders and disobey them.

ben509 8y ago

Speaking as a veteran and someone who was in an OPFOR unit, we trained in "simulations" as close as possible to the way we fight. > So a soldier trained to kill cannot be judged by what he does in a simulation (or what they believe to be one). Interestingly, EXROE (exercise rules of engagement) violations are subject to article 15 non-judicial punishment, so they are judged by what they do in a simulation in the US military. Our simulations are more realistic than the ones depicted in Ender's game, which were pretty strange looking back at it. In ours, you're in full kit, you're carrying your service weapon with a MILES laser attached and a blank fire adapter, there are helicopters flying overhead, and we have villages with imams and such, etc. And there are consequences... if the OPFOR wins the town will go "red" and demonstrations will break out, if BLUFOR wins the town goes "blue" and OPFOR is forced to leave. The big misconception people have is there are all these instant decisions you have to make or ironclad orders that have to be executed in an instant. The reality is you're responsible for what you shoot at, and that's why you're trained in target identification to know what you're shooting at. You generally don't want to be in a tactical situation where you have to make instant decisions; that's why the cordon and search tactics (similar to SWAT tactics) were so controversial precisely because going room to room meant making large numbers of snap decisions. The results were pretty predictable. Well developed rules of engagement and tactics help soldiers distinguish clearly between enemy combatants, friendlies and civilians. For example, if you are defending a gate, you're going to set up barriers to slow vehicles down so you have plenty of time to identify a potential VBIED. And you mark out different zones... this is where you flash lights, this is where you fire a warning shot, and if they get past this point you open up.

close04 8y ago
That's not the kind of sim I was thinking about. That's the case because the rules of your sim precisely replicate real life and that's the only point of it. You're "playing" following a very clear rule book. And they are still "real life", you are not put in a virtual training/learning environment where you write the rule book and can expect mistakes to have 0 consequences. The question was what if the simulation didn't replicate real life? What if you were expected or requested to do more by being told "it's a simulation and your ONLY goal is to win". It's GTA, Counter Strike, StarCraft, etc. Would knowing the person you just ran over while trying to win is a real person that just died or that you sent a real squad of marines to die so you can save one tank change your decisions? It's a hypothetical exercise, just like the Ender story. My main point is that even if you're trained to kill in real life the decisions you take in a sim with "fictitious" rules and scenarios can't be considered a breach of morality. Anyway, there is no justice or real consequences even for mistakes made in real life when it comes to the military. As evidence stands the mountain of innocent civilian victims. And to make the parallel with real life, Ender is not a soldier, he's a general. And just like in real life a decision that costs millions of lives on any side can still be rewarded with medals, glory, fame, as long as you're on the winning side.